High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc.

23 Citing cases

  1. Davidson v. The Peggs Co.

    Civ. A. 20-1641 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Pennsylvania follows Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). Consequently, “[f]or a plaintiff to establish a strict liability claim, [she] must prove (1) ‘the product was defective'; (2) ‘the defect was a proximate cause of [her] injuries'; and (3) ‘the defect causing the injury existed at the time the product left the seller's hands.”

  2. Cote v. U.S. Silica

    No. 4:18-CV-01440 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 12, 2019)

    In other words, Mr. Cote is proceeding under both the the "consumer expectations" test and the "risk-utility" test. See High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 348 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) ("In order to prove a product is in a 'defective condition' in the context of a design defect claim, the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court set forth two alternative standards: (1) the consumer expectations standard (whether the danger of the product is 'unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer'), or (2) the risk-utility standard (whether 'a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the product outweighs the burden or costs of taking precautions')."). See High, 154 A.3d at 348 ("[W]hether a product is in a defective condition is question of fact ordinarily submitted for determination to the finder of fact; the question is removed from the jury's consideration only where it is clear that reasonable minds could not differ on the issue.").

  3. Igwe v. Skaggs

    258 F. Supp. 3d 596 (W.D. Pa. 2017)   Cited 12 times
    Granting summary judgment in defendant's favor because “no authority” requires “a product seller to provide of myriad of similar worded warnings when its issued warning, as understood by the buyer, addresses the alleged defect.”

    628 Pa. 296, 104 A.3d 328 (2014).High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 345–46 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Barton v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 124 A.3d 349, 354–55 (Pa. Super. 2015) ); Punch v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 12-154, 2017 WL 752396, * 7 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2017) (citing Wright v. Ryobi Techs., Inc., 175 F.Supp.3d 439, 448 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ).High, 154 A.3d at 346 (citing Weiner v. America n Honda Motor Co., 718 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Super. 1998) ).

  4. Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

    2018 Pa. Super. 33 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    By basing its decision on its own view of how a jury would rule in any retrial, the trial court arrogated to itself a fact-finding role that it does not have. Under Azzarello , the trial court could determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. But if anything in the Supreme Court's Tincher decision is clear, it is that now only the fact-finder—in this case, the jury—may determine whether a product is defective. SeeTincher , 104 A.3d at 335, 380–81, 407–08 ; see alsoHigh v. Pennsy Supply, Inc. , 154 A.3d 341, 347 (Pa. Super. 2017) ("the Tincher Court concluded that the question of whether a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer is a question of fact that should generally be reserved for the factfinder"), petition for allowance of appeal denied , No. 211 MAL 2017, 171 A.3d 1287 (Pa., Sept. 26, 2017). The trial court's pronouncement that a jury on any retrial would reach the same verdict, thus disregards the requirement of factual proof and the value of jury instructions under the Supreme Court's decision.

  5. Kovalev v. Lidl U.S.

    No. 21-3300 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2024)

    standard”).Sikkelee, 907 F.3d at 710. The consumer expectations standard is not applicable where an “ordinary consumer would reasonably anticipate and appreciate the dangerous condition of the product.” High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 348 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (quoting Tincher, 104 A.3d at 387). “[T]he plaintiff must establish that the product was unsafe for its intended user.” Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000, 1007 (Pa. 2003).

  6. Bavone v. Primal Vantage Co.

    718 F. Supp. 3d 446 (W.D. Pa. 2024)   Cited 4 times

    To prevail, a plaintiff must prove that "the product was defective, the defect existed when it left the defendant's hands, and the defect caused the harm." Igwe v. Skaggs, 258 F. Supp. 3d 596, 609 (W.D. Pa. 2017) (citing High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., ___ Pa. ___, 154 A.3d 341, 345-46 (Pa. Super. 2017)). A product may be found defective based on proof of a manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure-to-warn defect.

  7. CM Regent Ins. Co. v. CAMaster, Inc.

    CIVIL 4:22-CV-205 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2022)

    A plaintiff may establish a “defective condition [in one of three ways] . . . by proving either [1] a manufacturing defect, [2] a design defect, or [3] a failure-to-warn defect.” Smith v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 251 F.Supp.3d 844, 847 (E.D. Pa. 2017); see also High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 345-46 (Pa. Super. 2017).

  8. Jones v. Swepi L.P.

    643 F. Supp. 3d 547 (W.D. Pa. 2022)   Cited 5 times

    Strict product liability claims in Pennsylvania, as governed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, require Plaintiff to prove that "the product was defective, the defect existed when it left the defendant's hands, and the defect caused the harm." Igwe v. Skaggs, 258 F. Supp. 3d 596, 609 (W.D. Pa. 2017) (citing High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 345-46 (Pa. Super. 2017)). "A product may be defective based on a manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure-to-warn defect." Id.

  9. Lehmann v. Louisville Ladder Inc.

    610 F. Supp. 3d 667 (E.D. Pa. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), overruled byTincher , 104 A.3d 328.High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc. , 154 A.3d 341, 347 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).Azzarello , 391 A.2d at 1027.

  10. Ruddy v. Polaris Indus.

    3:17-CV-0423 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2022)

    To prevail on a strict liability claim, the plaintiff must prove that the product was defective due to a manufacturing, design, or failure-to-warn defect, that the defect existed when it left the defendant's hands, and that the product's defect caused the alleged harm. Igwe v.Skaggs, 258 F.Supp.3d 596, 609 (W.D.Pa. 2017) (citing High v. Pa. Supply, Inc., 154 A.3d 341, 345-46 (Pa. Super. 2017)).