Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
A fire erupted in P's home. Investigators determined that a nearby lightning strike caused a small puncture in corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) that transported natural gas to a fireplace located on the first floor of the residence. The heat from the strike ignited the natural gas and fueled a fire estimated to have burned for over an hour before it was discovered. No one was injured in the fire, but the fire caused significant damage to P's home and belongings. D manufactured the CSST. P sued D asserting claims premised on theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The strict liability claim was based on section 402A of the American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), as adopted, followed, and construed in Pennsylvania. Ps alleged that the CSST is defective, and unreasonably dangerous to intended users because its walls are too thin to withstand the effects of lightning. D moved to have the trial court apply Sections 1 and 2 of the Third Restatement of Torts: Products Liability (1998) and to deliver jury instructions based on the Third Restatement, rather than the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By case law under the Second Restatement, it was improper to introduce negligence concepts into a strict liability case; it was for the court, not a jury, to determine whether a product was 'unreasonably dangerous' under the Second Restatement. The dispositive question in a case alleging that there was a defective design was whether the product is safe for its intended use; and in such a case, 'the seller is the 'guarantor' of the product, and a jury could find a defect 'where the product left the supplier's control lacking any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any feature that renders it unsafe for its intended use. P's experts testified that the CSST was susceptible to perforation because it is very thin (1/100 of an inch in thickness) and it withstands the transfer of much less electrical energy than would an alternative material, such as cast iron pipe. D moved for a nonsuit which was denied. D introduced its own evidence that the TracPipe System was not defective or unreasonably dangerous. Among other things, Omega Flex offered evidence of the utility of CSST as compared to cast iron pipe, noting such things as its resistance to corrosion and ruptures, ease of installation and relocation, and decreased susceptibility to gas leaks because it required fewer joints. D sought a directed verdict, contending that TracPipe was not unreasonably dangerous. It was denied. P got the verdict and D appealed. In an opinion dated November 19, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the Third Restatement, overruled Azzarello, and crafted a new test for proving whether a product is in a defective condition under Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine if D was entitled to a new trial. The court once again refused and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co