104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014)
Around 2:30 a.m. on June 20, 2007, neighbors reported a fire that had erupted at the home of the Tinchers in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Investigators concluded that a lightning strike near the Tinchers’ home caused a small puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing transporting natural gas to a fireplace. The CSST was part of the TracPipe System manufactured and sold by Omega Flex. The resulting fire burned for over an hour and caused significant damage to the home and belongings.1
Following the fire, the Tinchers reported the incident to their insurer, United Services Automobile Association. USAA compensated the Tinchers for their loss up to the limit of their policy and received an assignment of liability claims. The Tinchers suffered an additional out-of-pocket loss because a portion of their claimed loss exceeded the limits of the USAA policy. In January 2008, the Tinchers filed a complaint against Omega Flex in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. They asserted claims premised upon theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, with the strict liability claim based on Section 402A of the Second Restatement.2
The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2010 before Judge Ronald C. Nagle. The Tinchers offered expert testimony that the CSST walls were only one-hundredth of an inch thick and therefore inherently defective because lightning-generated currents were highly likely to perforate them. Omega Flex presented its own experts who testified that the TracPipe System met all applicable industry standards. They also stated that the lightning strike lacked sufficient energy to cause the puncture and that an attempted bonding clamp found disconnected after the fire may have prevented the incident if properly installed.3
After the close of evidence, the trial court denied Omega Flex’s motions for nonsuit and directed verdict. On October 20, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Tinchers on the strict liability claim. The jury awarded compensatory damages totaling $958,895.85 plus delay damages. The jury found for Omega Flex on the negligence claim. Omega Flex filed post-trial motions that the trial court denied, leading to entry of judgment. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment in September 2012. The Supreme Court granted Omega Flex’s petition for allowance of appeal limited to the question of whether to replace the strict liability analysis of the Second Restatement with that of the Third Restatement.4
Whether this Court’s decision in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company should be overruled?5
The doctrine of stare decisis commands judicial respect for prior decisions of this Court. It permits overruling when a prior rule is unsound in principle or no longer serves the interests of justice. This allows the common law to develop incrementally in response to new circumstances and better reasoning.6
Yes. The Azzarello decision created an impractical scheme by assigning the risk-utility determination exclusively to the trial court as a threshold matter of law and policy. It also required jury instructions that insulated the jury from any negligence concepts or risk-utility factors. This resulted in minimalistic and circular charges that failed to guide the jury on the central conception of product defect.7
This approach proved unworkable in practice. The Tinchers' case demonstrated this when the trial court followed the Azzarello charge and instructed the jury on strict liability without reference to whether the TracPipe System was unreasonably dangerous. This led to potential jury confusion evidenced by the split verdict on strict liability and negligence claims.8
The decision in Azzarello is overruled. Its rigid separation of negligence and strict liability concepts and its reassignment of the risk-utility calculus to the trial court no longer adequately serve the interests of justice in products liability litigation.9
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Saylor joins the majority in the long overdue overruling of Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co.10 Left to his own devices, he would direct Pennsylvania substantive common law products liability theory into the framework delineated in the Products Liability segment of the Third Restatement of Torts.11 He notes that the adjudicative process is very poorly suited to unstructured substantive lawmaking ventures such as ensued in Azzarello’s wake.12
Whether the strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement should be replaced with the analysis of the Third Restatement?13
The Court declines to adopt the Third Restatement formulation because its requirement of a reasonable alternative design creates categorical exemptions and evidentiary prerequisites. These may limit liability for novel products or claims where such evidence is unavailable. This is contrary to the broad policy of holding sellers responsible for damage caused by defective products placed in the stream of commerce.14
No. The Third Restatement's requirement of a reasonable alternative design proscriptively limits the applicability of the cause of action to certain products as to which that sort of evidence is available. This is contrary to the broad policy of holding sellers responsible for damage caused by defective products placed in the stream of commerce. The Tinchers were permitted to prove the TracPipe System defective through expert testimony on the thin walls and high probability of lightning perforation without needing to establish an alternative design.15
The strict liability analysis of the Second Restatement is not replaced with the Third Restatement, preserving flexibility for courts to apply consumer expectations or risk-utility standards depending on the facts of each case.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Saylor dissents from the decision not to adopt the Third Restatement.17 He argues that its framework provides the most viable route to clarification of strict liability jurisprudence in Pennsylvania.18 He notes that the adjudicative process is very poorly suited to unstructured substantive lawmaking ventures such as ensued in Azzarello’s wake.
Any adoption of the Third Restatement approach would be subject to the prerogatives of the General Assembly, which bears the primary responsibility for the social policy judgments essential to substantive lawmaking.19
Whether a plaintiff pursuing a cause upon a theory of strict liability in tort must prove that the product is in a defective condition?20
A plaintiff pursuing a cause upon a theory of strict liability in tort must prove that the product is in a defective condition. The plaintiff may prove defective condition by showing either that the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer, or that a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions. The burden of production and persuasion is by a preponderance of the evidence.21
Yes. The Tinchers carried this burden at trial by presenting expert testimony from electrical engineering and metallurgy specialists. These experts testified that the CSST walls were only one-hundredth of an inch thick. This rendered the danger of perforation by lightning-generated currents unacceptable to the ordinary consumer.22
It also established that the high probability of harm from such thin walls outweighed any burden of precautions such as thicker walls or mandatory bonding every ten feet, as compared to the ten-times-thicker black iron pipe alternative.23
The plaintiff must prove defective condition under the alternative consumer expectations or risk-utility standards, allowing the factfinder to assess the evidence in light of the product's nature and the circumstances of the claim.24
Whether the question of whether a product is in a defective condition is ordinarily submitted for determination to the finder of fact?25
Whether a product is in a defective condition is a question of fact ordinarily submitted for determination to the finder of fact. The question is removed from the jury’s consideration only where it is clear that reasonable minds could not differ on the issue. This returns the trial court to its traditional role of deciding legal questions on dispositive motions and articulating the governing law for the jury.26
Yes. In the Tinchers' case, the evidence of the thin CSST walls, the experts' testimony on the near-certain probability of perforation by expected lightning currents, and the competing testimony from Omega Flex's experts on industry standards and bonding created a genuine factual dispute that was properly submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Tinchers on the strict liability claim after receiving instructions consistent with the new standard.27
The question of defective condition is ordinarily for the finder of fact, with the trial court exercising its gatekeeping function only in clear cases where reasonable minds could not differ.28