Sullivan, M. v. Werner Co., Pets.

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL AND MELISSA SULLIVAN, H/W : No. 324 EAL 2021 : :

v. : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court :

WERNER COMPANY AND LOWE'S : COMPANIES, INC., AND MIDDLETOWN : TOWNSHIP LOWE'S STORE #1572 :

: :

PETITION OF: WERNER COMPANY AND : LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Was it an error of law, under the product liability principles this Court established in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), to prevent the jury from considering the product’s compliance with pertinent industry and governmental safety standards, where this exclusion of evidence:

(1) was contrary to Tincher’s expressed intent to provide juries with greater, rather than less, ability to decide if an unreasonably dangerous defect exists in a product;

(2) was contrary to Tincher’s recognition that strict liability and negligence substantially overlap in product liability cases, particularly as to the “risk/utility” defect theory plaintiffs pursued in this case; and

(3) would once again leave Pennsylvania product liability law in a distinct minority position, concerning admissibility of compliance evidence.