Third Circuit Denies Plaintiff’s Request For New Trial In Pennsylvania Ladder Case

The Third Circuit denied a plaintiff’s request for a new trial in a diversity products-liability action filed in federal court against a ladder manufacturer.  In the underlying action, the plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer after being injured when falling off one of the manufacturer’s ladders.  The plaintiff argued he was entitled to a new trial because the district court erred by (1) applying the Restatement (Third) over the Restatement (Second) to his strict liability claim; and (2) precluding him from introducing evidence of other accidents involving ladders.  The Third Circuit disagreed.  First, the court found that the Restatement (Third) applied to the plaintiff’s strict liability claim.  Despite the fact that a case deciding this exact issue was pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, existing federal precedent had already predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply the Restatement (Third) to strict liability claims.  Accordingly, the lower court, following that precedent, did not err in its application of the law.

With respect to evidence of other accidents, the Third Circuit noted that under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence of other accidents is only relevant where the accidents are “substantially similar” to the accident in question.  The plaintiff failed to introduce any evidence that the other accidents he wanted to introduce occurred on the same ladder and/or under similar circumstances.  Thus, the district court was correct in denying their admission because there was no indication that the accidents were “substantially similar” to the accident at issue.