Pennsylvania High Court Halts Decision For Changes To Pennsylvania Strict Liability Law
In an unexpected move, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to render a decision whether changes to the law of strict liability are necessary or desirable. The move comes as a surprise given the Court's response comes after it granted allocatur and heard oral arguments on the matter. In the matter Bugosh v. I.U. North America, 971 A.2d 1228 (Pa. June 16, 2009) [dissent filed by Justice Saylor], the issue presented was whether changes in the current law applicable in product liability cases that hold suppliers and others strictly liable for injuries and harms are now (over)due, i.e., adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Opponents of the current regime argue that strict liability is unfair and outdated. Specifically, in Bugosh, an asbestos litigation case, counsel argued that when the alleged harmful product was manufactured and supplied in 1965, mesothelioma, a condition caused by exposure to asbestos products was a medical unknown and to hold the supplier liable for a failure to warn of an unknown was unfair and illogical. Had the Court rendered a decision accepting a more modern approach or adoption of the Restatement Third in line with other states that have already steered away from the concept of strict liability it would open the doors to future defendants to introduce evidence of negligence/fault of plaintiffs in litigation.
The Court refusal to render a decision comes as a further surprise given the recent line of cases evolving from the High Court seemingly steering course to a more modern approach or flat out adoption of the Restatement Third. See Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) [with Concurring and Concurring & Dissenting opinions]. Spectators and other interested parties/persons likely are not alone in this surprise given a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the matter of Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, 563 F.3d. 38 (3d.Cir., 2009) whereby that Court, now seemingly prematurely, predicted that in line of the recent line of cases flowing from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the Court would adopt relevant provisions of the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
So the question remains, what, if anything will become of the law of strict liability in Pennsylvania. In spite of the short sweeping away of the Bugosh matter, the answer may lie in the lengthy nearly 40 page dissent of two of the Justices indicating that the real question is not whether a change in law will arrive but when.
