Filing a Product Liability Lawsuit in Pennsylvania: Key Evidence and Legal Tests

Product liability lawsuits in Pennsylvania are notoriously complex and fiercely contested. This is especially true when a defective product causes catastrophic injury. Product liability cases often involve difficult fact patterns and require a deep understanding of the law. For victims of defective products, the stakes are incredibly high. Injuries caused by defective products often lead to severe injuries and sometimes death. This blog post will summarize recent Pennsylvania case law outlining the essential evidence needed to prove a successful product liability case, focusing on the recent Superior Court opinion in L.T. v. Kubota Manufacturing of America Corporation. Specifically, this article will discuss the evidence needed to prove a product liability case in Pennsylvania, as well as the two primary tests judges and juries apply in order to determine whether a product is defective (the risk-utility test and the consumer expectation test). Although these tests apply very different factors, a plaintiff only needs to succeed on one to prove a product is defective.

I. The Complexity of Product Liability Cases

Product liability cases are so challenging because in order to succeed, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that a product was defective and that this defect caused his or her injury. Moreover, product manufacturers have strong economic incentives to mount vigorous (sometimes scorched earth) defenses to product liability lawsuits. If a judge or jury concludes that a product is defective, it could dramatically impact the business and profitability of a manufacturer. Thus, product liability claims often need to be recorded as contingent liabilities on a business’s financial statement.

In Pennsylvania, plaintiffs can pursue claims under theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. Each theory has its own set of requirements and nuances, making it essential to gather comprehensive evidence and present a compelling case. The most common theory pursued by plaintiffs in product liability cases is for strict liability. This makes sense, since, when pursuing a theory of strict liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove a manufacturer was negligent. Rather, they only need to establish that the product was defective, and that defect caused an injury. Indeed, the strict liability doctrine was originally devised to alleviate and streamline the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden in cases involving product defects.

There are three different theories a plaintiff can pursue in a strict liability lawsuit: (1) the product was defectively designed; (2) the product was defectively manufactured; or (3) the product included an inadequate warning. Some cases may include all three theories of strict liability. For instance, our firm litigated numerous cases against the manufacturer of the 3T heater-cooler alleging all three strict liability theories.

II. Evidence Needed to Establish a Product Liability Case

To establish a product liability case in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs must present evidence that the product was defective and that this defect caused their injuries. The evidence can include:

1. Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses play a crucial role in product liability cases. They can provide opinions on whether the product was defectively designed, manufactured, or lacked adequate warnings. For example, in L.T. v. Kubota, the plaintiffs’ expert performed tests and reviewed extensive documentation to support his opinion that a riding lawn mower manufactured by the defendant was defectively designed and lacked necessary safety features.
2. Design and Manufacturing Defects: Plaintiffs must show that the product had a design or manufacturing defect that made it unreasonably dangerous. Design defects can be proven by comparing the product to industry standards or alternative designs. In proving a claim for manufacturing defect, a plaintiff must show that the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer and was a proximate cause of his injury.
3. Failure to Warn: Plaintiffs can also prove that the product was defective due to inadequate warnings. This requires a plaintiff to show that the manufacturer failed to provide sufficient warnings about the product’s dangers. For instance, in the L.T. v. Kubota case, the plaintiffs argued that the lawn mower lacked visible hazard warnings and instructions to prevent backover injuries. Alternatively, in our 3T heater-cooler litigation, our firm was able to show that the device in question did not disclose that it could emit dangerous bacteria into the air of the operating room when it was turned on.
4. Causation: It is not enough to show that the product was defective; plaintiffs must also prove that the defect caused their injuries. This often requires detailed factual analysis and expert testimony.

III. Pennsylvania Law on Establishing a Design Defect

As discussed above, to succeed on a product liability theory, a plaintiff can claim that a product was defectively designed. In establishing a design defect claim, a plaintiff can meet his or her burden under one of two separate legal tests: (1) the risk utility test; or (2) the consumer expectation test.

1. The Risk-Utility Test

The risk-utility test is a common method plaintiffs use to establish that a product is defectively designed. In short, this test involves weighing the risks posed by the product against its utility. If the risks of the product outweigh its utility, a jury can conclude that the product was defectively designed. Factors considered in this analysis include the gravity of the danger, the likelihood of injury, the feasibility of a safer design, the cost of implementing such a design, and the adverse consequences of the alternative design.

In the L.T. v. Kubota case, the plaintiffs’ expert applied the risk-utility test to argue that a lawn mower was defectively designed. He pointed out that the mower’s design posed a significant risk of backover injuries to children, a danger that was well-documented in industry studies. He also demonstrated that safer alternative designs, such as the NMIR feature and rear guarding, were feasible and had been implemented by other manufacturers. The court recognized that these issues were factual disputes that should be resolved by a jury, rather than through summary judgment.

2. The Consumer Expectation Test

The consumer expectation test is another method used to assess whether a product is defective. This test is simpler than the risk-utility test but also requires a strong factual record.  In sum, under the consumer expectation test, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. The focus is on the expectations of the average user, rather than on technical or scientific standards.

In the L.T. v. Kubota case, the plaintiffs argued that the lawn mower failed the consumer expectation test because it did not include safety features that an ordinary consumer would expect. The plaintiffs’ expert witness testified that consumers would reasonably expect a riding mower to have safeguards against backover injuries, given the known risks and the availability of such features in other products. The court agreed that this was a question for the jury to decide, highlighting the importance of considering consumer expectations in product liability cases.

Conclusion

Product liability cases in Pennsylvania require a thorough understanding of both legal principles and the specific facts of the case. The recent Superior Court opinion in L.T. v. Kubota underscores the importance of expert testimony and detailed factual analysis in establishing a product liability claim. Because the risk-utility and consumer expectation tests are critical tools in this analysis, it is important that attorneys pursuing product liability claims establish a strong factual record to meet each necessary legal element. Given the complexity of these cases, it is essential to have a skilled Pennsylvania trial attorney who can navigate the legal landscape and advocate effectively on behalf of injured clients.

Contact Us

If you suffered a serious injury due to negligence, you may be able to file a personal injury lawsuit, and finding a good law office can make a huge difference to the outcome of your case. The law offices of Cohen, Placitella & Roth have many years of experience guiding clients through these options and fighting on their behalf.

At CPR Law, we strive to make lasting impacts in our clients’ lives by seeking justice for them and by doing what’s right. Contact our team of lawyers at (888) 572-7388 to schedule your consultation today.