eNotes: Liability – January 2024 – Pennsylvania Client Advisory

CLIENT ADVISORY

PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT ADVISORY

Pennsylvania Supreme Court upholds preclusion of evidence of a product liability defendant’s compliance with industry and governmental safety standards.

In a much-anticipated decision, Sullivan v. Werner Company, No. 18 EAP 2022 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that product liability defendants may not introduce evidence of their compliance with industry or governmental safety standards. In Sullivan, the plaintiff had been injured while using a rolling scaffold manufactured by Werner Company and sold by Lowe’s Companies, Inc. Plaintiff filed suit against Werner and Lowe’s in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. At trial, the Defendants sought to introduce evidence of the product’s compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and standards from the American National Standards Institute. Plaintiff filed a Pre-trial Motion in limine to bar such evidence, which was granted by the Trial Court. After the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff and awarded him $2.5 million dollars, the Defendants appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the Trial Court’s preclusion of evidence of the Defendants’ compliance with governmental and industry standards. The Defendants then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In a split decision, Pennsylvania’s High Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling, and held that the Supreme Court’s seminal 2013 decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex did not change the way courts should handle the admissibility of evidence of a product liability defendant’s compliance with governmental and industry standards. While Tincher seemed to ease the severe separation between negligence and strict liability theories in Pennsylvania product liability cases, the Sullivan Court stated that said separation is still very much in effect. As such, reasoned the Court, a defendant’s compliance with safety standards improperly directs a jury’s attention to the defendant’s conduct, rather than the product itself. In a forceful dissent, Chief Justice Debra Todd observed that the majority decision “eschews the recent teachings of this court in Tincher; rejects the sound approach taken by virtually all of our sister states; accepts the patent unfairness of nonetheless allowing such evidence to be admissible in a plaintiff’s case to show a product is defective; and deprives juries of potentially valuable and relevant information.”

Questions about this case can be directed to Ken Newman at (412) 697-7403 or knewman@tthlaw.com.