Federal Court Applies New Pennsylvania Test For Product Defects Retroactively

Following injuries sustained while using a table saw, the product user (plaintiff) sued the manufacturer for design defect alleging that the removable blade guard design was defective without active mitigation flesh detection technology.  The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled yesterday that the design defect claims could go to the jury.  In November 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a new standard of proof to determine whether a product is defective.  Specifically, a plaintiff can meet the consumer expectations test (showing that the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer) or the risk-utility test (showing that a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product outweighs the burden or costs of taking precautions).  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also explained that under either test, the question of whether a product is in a defective condition is a question of fact for the jury.

The Pennsylvania federal court concluded that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s new standard should be retroactively applied to this case and concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to the table saw’s design.  Specifically, the defendants failed to show the absence of a triable issue as to whether the failure to incorporate flash detection technology rendered the table saw defective under the risk-utility test.  The plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient facts to show that a jury could find that a table saw equipped with flash detection technology was a reasonable alternative design when this particular model was sold.