Philadelphia Injury Lawyer Blog

For decades, Pennsylvania product injury lawyers have had to deal with confusing law about who can recover for injuries when a product causes injury due to defective design. Because the appellate courts have been restrictively vague, our Philadelphia and other Delaware Valley clients who were injured by products, such as bicycles, helicopters, automobiles, machinery and equipment, or consumer goods, had to resort to negligence theories with foreseeable zones of danger unless they were the actual purchasers.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday (4/21/09) in Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing that bystanders could recover under strict products liability theory and that it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment because the injured plaintiff was not the intended user or purchaser. There was a genuine issue of fact over whether an alternative design would have prevented the injuries. In that case, a four-year old was injured when a lawn mower operated by her grandfather, went over her foot which was eventually amputated. The lawn tractor’s design was claimed to be defective and was unreasonably dangerous.

By so ruling, the Third Circuit predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as other states had done, would adopt section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, replacing the old 402A standard, extending strict liability to the manufacturer or distributor of a defectively-designed product to any foreseeable person, not just the purchaser or ultimate user.

This decision is good news! The Philadelphia product liability attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have successfully handled hundreds of design and manufacturing defect cases, both under negligence and products liability claims. Our lawyers have fought for the rights of injured plaintiffs and welcome this fair and long overdue decision making it clear that a bystander or any foreseeable person should be able to recover for his or her injuries.