NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 4322

_____________ R Y A N J A C O B S O N , a mi norand byR ober tJ acobs on and B ever l yJ acobs on a s th e p a re n ts a n d n a tu ra l g u a rd ia n s o f R y a n J a c o b s o n , A ppel l ant v. B M W O F N O R T H A M E R IC A , L L C , a c o rp o ra tio n ; BA YER I SCHE M OTO REN W ERK E AK TI ENG ESOLLSCHA FT, a corpor at i on A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 02- cv- 00181) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 23, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 15, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff Ry an J acobs on appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on for2

a new t r i al fol l ow i ng a j ur yver di cti n favorof def endant s B ay er i s che M ot or en W erke A kt i enges el l s chaf

t( “B M W - A G ”) and B M W of N or t h A m er i ca, L L C ( “B M W N A ”) ( col l ect i vel y , “B M W ”) i n a pr oduct s l i abi l i t yl aw s ui tar i s i ng outof an a cci denti nvol vi ng a 1 9 8 7 B M W 3 2 5 i, a tw o -do o r au tom ati c tran sm issi o n sp o rtco u p e, drive n b yR o b ert Ja c o b so n , R y a n ’s f

a th e r. O n a p p e a l, Ja c o b so n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n in d en y ing Jac o b so n ’s m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial , w h ich c h all en g ed the C o u rt ’s pr i orevi dent i aryrul i ngs and i t s j ur yi ns t ruct i ons . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ct C our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on, w e w i l l aff i r m the O r derand J udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt. I . Backg r ound T he fo l l ow i ng fact s com e from the tr i al transcr i pt, and , excep tw here ot herw i se i ndi cat ed, ar e undi s put ed. T he vehi cl e w as m anufa ctur ed byB M W - A G and s ol d i n t he U ni t ed St at es byB M W N A . B M W - A G i s a G erm an corpor at i on, w hi ch, among ot her thing s, m an u fa cture s an d d istri b u tes m o tor v eh icl es w o rl d w ide. B M W N A , a D elaw are L i m i t ed Li abi l i t yC om panyr egi s t er ed t o do bus i nes s i n Penns y l vani a, i s a w hol l yow ned su b sid iar yo f

B M W -A G , an d d istrib u tes , se lls, m a rk e ts, a n d se rv ice s m o to r v e h icle s in No r t h Am e r i c a t h a twe r e ma n u f a c tu r e d b yBMW - AG. On M a y4 , 1 9 9 9 , Ro b e r tJ a c o b s o n d r o v e th e BMW 3 2 5 i t o d o e r r a n d s wi t h h i s t wo s ons , R y an and Chri s t opher . R y an, age 12, w as s eat ed i n t he fr ontpas s engers eat , and C hr i s t opher , age 9, w as s eat ed i n t he r earpas s engers eat . R ober tJ acobs on s t opped atB M W di s put ed R obertJ acobs on’ s cl ai m s thathe enga ged the parki ng br ake a nd 1 t hathe r emoved t he key s fr om t he i gni t i on w hen exi t i ng the ca r . I tal s o adduce d evi dence fr om C hr i s t ophert hatR y an di s engage d a s afe t ym echa ni s m and ther ebyoverr ode the c a r’s sa f e tyf e a tu re s. H o w e v e r, th is f a c tu a l d isp u te is n o t re lev a n t to th e iss u e s o n a p p e a l. 3 Sam ’ s B ar , i n D or m ont , Penns y l vani a, t o buya s i x- pack of beerfora fa m i l ycookout , and parked the ca ri n t he bar ’ s parki ng l ot . H e cl ai m s that , w hen he pa r ked the ca r , he pl ace d t he s hi ftl everi nt o t he “Park” pos i t i on, turned the engi ne off , s etthe parki ng br ake, and r emoved t he key s fr om t he i gni t i on, befor e exi t i ng the vehi cl e and e nt er i ng the bar . R y an 1 an d C h ri stop h er rem aine d in the ca r w h il e the irfa ther e n tered the b ar. T he parki ng l otof the bari s on a s l ope. W hi l e hi s fatherw as i ns i de the s t or e, R y a n b e g a n p la y in g w ith th e g e a r s h if t le v e r, w h ic h w a s lo c a te d b e tw e e n th e f ro n t s e a ts . W h ile p layi n g , R y a n d ise n g a g e d th e g e a r sh if t lev e r f ro m th e “ P a rk ” p o sitio n , sh if tin g it in to e ith e r “ R e v e rs e ” o r “ N e u tr a l,” a n d th e c a r b e g a n to d ri f t b a c k w a rd s d o w n th e s lo p e . R y a n tr ie d to m o v e th e g e a r s h if t b a c k in to th e “ P a rk ” p o s itio n , b u t w a s u n a b le to d o s o . R y an and Chri s t opherbeca m e s car ed, and C hr i s t ophercl i m bed i nt o t he fr onts eat and exi t ed thr ough t he dr i ver ’ s s i de w i ndow unhur t . R y an exi t ed thr ough t he pas s enger s i d e wi n d o w, b u tf

e l l t o t h e g r o u n d a n d wa s s t ru c k b yth e r i g h tf r o n tp a r to f

th e c a r . He su sta in e d m u lti p le f

ra c tu re s, c o n tu sio n s, a n d lac e ra tio n s, a s w e ll as in ju rie s to h is b ra in a n d lef t eye. H is in

ju rie s re q u ire d se v e ra l su rg e rie s, in c lu d in g a rth ro sc o p ic s u rg e ryo n h is l eftknee, r epai r s t o hi s l eftey e, br ai n s ur gery , and pl as t i c s ur gery . H e has al s o neede d ext ens i ve phy s i cal t her apy , and furthers ur ger i es ar e l i kel yt o be nec es s ary . A s a r es ul tof4

t hes e i nj ur i es , hi s fac e and s kul l have be en perm anent l ydi s fi gur ed. R obertJ acobs on fi l ed s ui ton behal f of hi s m i nors on R y an aga i ns tB M W i n t he W estern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia, all eg ing that B M W w as stri ctl yli ab le fo r R y an ’s i nj ur i es beca us e the des i gn of the ca rw as defe ct i ve. H e as s ert ed thatB M W s houl d have e q u ip p e d th e v e h icle w ith e ith e r a B ra k e S h if t In ter lo c k (“ B S I” ), a d e v ice w h ich w o u ld have pr event ed the ca rfr om s hi ft i ng outof “Park” unl es s the br ake pe dal w as depr es s ed, ora Park L ock Sy s t em (“ PL S”) , a devi ce w hi ch w oul d have pr event ed the gea rs hi ftfr om m ovi ng outof “Park” unl es s t he keyw as i n t he i gni t i on and had be en turned outof the

“ L o c k ” p o sitio n (c o llec tiv e ly“ L o c k S y ste m s” ). B M W c o n ten d e d th a t th e a c c id e n t co u ld nothave ha ppened i n t he w ayJ acobs on ur ged, and thatthe ca rw as s afe as des i gned. T he ca s e w entt o t r i al , and a j uryr eturned a ve r di cti n favorof B M W . J acobs on fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on fora new t r i al , w hi ch w as deni ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t . J acobs on then fil ed this ap p ea l, co n tend ing that the D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r a new t r i al . I n part i cul ar , J acobs on ar gues thatfourerr or s w arr ant ed a ne w tr i al . Fi r s t , he cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng a mot i on i n l i m i ne byB M W t o excl ude evi dence of othervehi cl es t hatus ed the Lock Sy s t ems, and of pr oductr eca l l s byN i s s an and J eep t o r etr ofi tt hei rcar s w i t h L ock Sy s t ems. Second, he ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr oneous l ybarr ed hi m fr om pr es ent i ng evi dence of the “f eas i bi l i t y ” of the des i gn change s . T hi r d, J acobs on cl ai m s t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tgave a n err oneous j uryi ns t ruct i on o n th e d e f

in iti o n o f “ d e sig n d e f

e c t.” F in a lly , h e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in5

admi t t i ng evi dence of J acobs on’ s contr i but orynegl i gence . II . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cas e pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on a mot i on fora new tr i al forabus e of di s cr et i on, r ecogni zi ng t hatt he dec i s i on t o gr antordenya new tr i al i s nor m al l yw i t hi n t he d is c re tio n o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . B l an cha v. R aym ark Indu s. , 9 7 2 F . 2 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); Mc Ke n n a v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 5 8 2 F . 3 d 4 4 7 , 4 6 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A co u rt ’s l at i tude i n rul i ng on t he mot i on i s es peci al l ybr oad w hen the gr ounds as s ert ed i n t he m o tio n c o n c e rn m a tte rs th a t in itia lly re s te d w ith in th e d is c re tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . K l ei n v. H

ol l i ngs , 9 9 2 F . 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 8 9 -90 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). R u li n g s o n ev iden ti arym att ers a n d th e c o n te n t o f

in s tru c tio n s to th e ju ry a re tw o s u c h d is c re tio n a ry m a tte rs . See McKenna , 5 8 2 F .3 d a t 4 6 0 (e v id e n tiary ru lin g s); D on l i n v. P hil i ps L igh t i ngN

. A m . C orp ., 5 8 1 F . 3 d 7 3 , 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (j u ryinstruction s). III . D i s cus s i on A . E v ide n c e o

f Fe a sib ili ty Pr i ort o t r i al , B M W fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne s eeki ng t o excl ude evi dence of other c a r m a n u f

a c tu re r re c a lls (b yN iss a n in 1 9 8 7 a n d Je e p in 1 9 9 4 ) in o rd e r to re tro f it th e ir v e h icle s w ith L o c k S y ste m s. W h ile J a c o b so n h a d a d d u c e d th is e v id e n c e to sh o w th a t it w oul d have be en fe as i bl e forB M W t o have i ncl uded a Lock Sy s t em i n i t s vehi cl es att he6

t i m e the 325i w as m anufa ctur ed, B M W as s ert ed thati tw oul d notcont es tfea s i bi l i t yat t r i al . T he part i es agr eed t o a s t i pul at i on thatthe Lock Sy s t ems w er e “t echnol ogi cal l yand economi cal l yfea s i bl e” a tt he r el evantt i m e, and the D i s t r i ctC our tther efor e exc l uded the e v id e n c e o f

o th e r r e c a lls . J acobs on ar gues t hatt hi s w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. T o demonstr at e thatthe C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, J acobs on m us ts how thatthe evi dent i aryrul i ng w as “arbi t r ary , fanc i ful orcl ear l yunr eas onabl e. ” A c u m e d L L Cv . A dv a n c e d

S u r g ic a l S e r v s ., In c ., 5 6 1 F .3 d 1 9 9 , 2 1 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). J acobs on cannotdo s o. N ot w i t hs t andi ng the fa ctthatthi s evi dence m ayhave be en admi s s i bl e underFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 407, w hi ch al l ow s forevi dence of s ubs equent re m e d ial m e a su re s to b e a d m itt e d in c e rta in in sta n c e s, it w a s n o t n e c e ss a ryto a d m it th is e v id e n c e h e re , sin c e B M W h a d stip u late d to f e a sib ili ty . It w a s a lso n o t u n re a so n a b le to excl ude i t . A l t hough J acobs on now ar gues thatthi s evi dence w oul d al s o have s how n t hat t he B M W w as uns afe w i t houta Lock Sy s t em, he di d notadvanc e thi s ar gum enti n t he D istric t C o u rt, an d w e w ill n o t co n sid e r it fo r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. Ja c o b so n a lso c h a llen g e s th e e x c lu sio n o f th is re c a ll ev id e n c e b a se d o n c e rta in r es pons es of B M W ’ s expertw i t nes s , W ol fe Busch, i n w hi ch he s t at ed thatthe Lock Sy s t ems w er e “f

eas i bl e, butnoty eti nvent ed. ” J acobs on ar gues thatthi s “opene d t he door ” t o t he r eca l l evi dence t o demonstr at e the fe as i bi l i t yand ava i l abi l i t yof the Lock Sy s t ems. H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tand the part i es addr es s ed thi s obj ect i on byaddi ngT he cont ent i ous i s s ue betw een the part i es attr i al w i t h r egar d t o t hi s i ns t ruct i on 2 w as t he phr as e “i nt ended us er , ” r atherthan “i nt ended us e. ” See A pp. 189- 94. D ur i ng t he fi nal char ge conf

er ence , aft ert he C our thad gone ove rthe i ns t ruct i on cont ai ni ng “i nt ended us e, ” A pp. 191, J acobs on’ s l aw y ers t at ed that , “on beha l f of Pl ai nt i ff, I have r evi ew ed y ourent i r e documentand I have no obj ect i ons t o anyt hi ng ot herthan the ‘ and/ or , ’ and the l anguage i n t he ver di cts l i p, ” A pp. 201. 7 t o t he pr evi ous s t i pul at i on l anguage s t at i ng thatthes e s y s t ems w er e “a vai l abl e. ” The D i s t r i ctC our tt hen pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed the j uryt o di s r egar d B us ch’ s pr i ort es t i m onyt o t he ext enti tcontr adi ct ed the s t i pul at i on, B us ch agr eed w i t h t he amended s t i pul at i on, and Ja c o b so n d id n o t lo d g e a n o b jec tio n to th is p ro c e d u re . W e f in d n o a b u se o f

d isc re tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt’s h a n d lin g o f th is a sp e c t o f

th e trial. B . J u ry In str u c tio n C o n c e rn in gth e D e fin iti o n o f “D e sig n D e

fec t” J acobs on al s o fi nds faul tw i t h the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on r egar di ng the defi ni t i on of a “ des i gn defe ct . ” A s partof thi s i ns t ruct i on, the C our ts t at ed that“[t ] he des i gnerordi s t r i but orof a pr oducti s a guar ant orof i t s s afe t y . T he pr oductm us tbe provided w i t h ev eryel em ent necessaryt o m ake itsafe for i t s i nt ended us e byan i nt ended us erand w i t houtanycondi t i on t hatm akes i tuns afe fori t s i nt ended us e byan i nt ended us er . ” A pp. 243- 44 ( emphasi s added) . J acobs on cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byi ns er t i ng t he w or d “i nt ended” befor e the w or d “us e” a nd bynotfur t heri ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yconce r ni ng t he meani ng of “i nt ended. ” H o w e v e r, Ja c o b so n d id n o t o b jec t to th e p h ra sin g o f

th is la n g u a g e a t trial. 2 I ns t ead, he s peci fi cal l yacc ept ed s ever al pr opos ed j uryi ns t ruct i ons thati ncorpor at ed theJa c o b so n a g re e d to D e f e n d a n ts’ R e q u e ste d Ju ryC h a rg e N o . 1 5 , w h ich sta ted : 3 “To deci de i f the M odel 325 i n ques t i on w as defe ct i ve, y ou m us tfi r s tdeci de i f the M odel 32 5 w as defecti ve in i t s no rm al and int end ed u se .” S u p p . A p p . 1 6 9 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). H e f

u rth e r a g re e d to D e f

e n d a n ts’ R e q u e ste d Ju ryC h a rg e N o . 1 7 , w h ich sta ted : “ A m a n u f

a c tu re r is e n tit led to a ss u m e th a t it s p ro d u c ts w ill n o t b e su b jec ted to a b n o rm a l, u n in ten d e d u se s. N o liab ili tyf o llo w s f ro m d a m a g e s re su lti n g f ro m su c h a b n o rm a l, uni nt ended us es . ” Supp. A pp. 171. Fi nal l y , J acobs on’ s ow n pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on, Pl ai nt i ff’ s R eques t ed J ur yC har ge N o. 1, di r ect l yi ncorpor at ed the conc eptof an “ i nt ended u se ” in to th e d e f

in iti o n o f “ d e sig n d e f

e c t” b ysta tin g : T h e p ro d u c t m u st b e p ro v id e d w ith e v e rye lem e n t n e c e ss a ryto m a k e it sa f e f o r its in ten d e d a n d f

o re se e a b le u se , an d w ith o u t an yc o n d iti o n th a t m a k e s it u n sa f e f o r its i nt ended a nd for es eea bl e us e. I f y ou fi nd thatthe pr oduct , atthe t i m e i tl eftthe defe ndant ’ s contr ol , l acke d anyel ementnece s s aryt o m ake i ts afe fori t s i nt ended and for es eea bl e us e, orcont ai ned anycondi t i on thatm ade i tuns afe fori t s i nt ended and for es eea bl e us e, and ther e w as an al t ernat i ve, s afe rpr act i cabl e des i gn, then the p ro d u c t w a s d e f

e c tiv e a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t is liab le f

o r a ll h a rm c a u se d b yth e d e f e c t. Supp. A pp. 202. A l t hough t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n D epar tm ent of G ener al 4 Ser vi ces w as i s s ued af

t erJ acobs on w as i nj ur ed and a ft erhe fi l ed thi s l aw s ui t , fede r al cour t s m us tappl ys t at e l aw “i n acc or dance w i th t he then contr ol l i ng deci s i on of the hi ghes ts t at e court . ” V

andenbark v. O w ens - I

l l i nois G l as s C o. , 3 1 1 U .S . 5 3 8 , 5 4 3 (1 9 4 1 ). 8 conce ptof an “ i nt ended us e. ” A par t yw ho has notcl ear l yand s peci fi cal l yobj ect ed t o a 3 ju ry in s tru c tio n is d e e m e d to h a v e w a iv e d th a t c h a lle n g e . A l exande rv. R iga , 208 F. 3d 4 1 9 , 4 2 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). If a p a rtyd o e s n o t o b

jec t, w e re v iew th e in stru c tio n f o r p lain err or , and w i l l r ever s e “onl yi f the tr i al cour tcomm i t t ed err orthatw as fundament al and hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al . ” Id . T her e w as no pl ai n err or . U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , w hi ch the part i es agr ee appl i es her e, “a manufac tur ercan be deemed l i abl e onl yforharm thatoccur s i n connec t i on w i th a pr oduct ’ s i nt ended us e byan i nt ended us er . ” P a. D ep’ tof G en. Ser vs . v. U. S. Mi ner al P r ods . C o. , 898 A . 2d 590, 600 ( Pa. 2006) . T hus , i tw as appr opr i at e forthe C our tt o r efe r 4Th i s r e q u i r e s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c u r r e n ts t a t e l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yth e s t a t e s u p r e me c o u rt , e v e n if

it w e re to b e c h a n g e d w h ile th e f e d e ra l a c tio n is p e n d in g . Id .; A irP r o d s . & C hem s . , I

nc. v. H ar t f or d A cci dent

& I ndem . C o. , 2 5 F .3 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); B aker v. O ut boar d Mar i ne C or p. , 5 9 5 F .2 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ).

9 t o t he pr oduct ’ s “i nt ended us e” i n t he j uryi ns t ruct i ons . T he pr i nci pal cas e r el i ed upon by J a c o b s o n , MountO l i vet Taber nacl e C hur ch v. E dw i n L. W i egand D i vis i on , 781 A . 2d 1 2 6 3 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 20 0 1 ), is n o t ap p lica b le to th e se f a c ts. In th a t ca se , the c o u rt m e re ly hel d t hatt he w or d “i nt ended” i s “notal w ay s nece s s aryfora pr operi ns t ruct i on. ” I d. at 1268. I tdi d notpr ecl ude court s fr om everr efe r r i ng t o t he i nt ended us e. J acobs on di d obj ectt o t he C our t ’ s deci s i on nott o i ncl ude a de fi ni t i on of “i nt ended us e” thatencompas s ed anyus e “r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e” t o t he s el l er . W hen a pa r t yhas properl yobj ect ed to a j uryi nst ruct i on , w e revi ew for abu se of d i scr et i on , and w e m ust det erm i ne “w hether , t aken a s a w hol e, the i ns t ruct i on pr oper l yappr i s ed the j uryof the i s s ues and the appl i cabl e l aw . ” D o n lin , 581 F. 3d at78 ( ci t i ng D ress ler v. B u sch E n tm ’t C or p. , 143 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ) . E ven a mi s t ake i n a j uryi ns t ruct i on w i l l not c o n stitu te r e v e rsib le e rro r if th e in stru c tio n “ ‘f

a irlya n d a d e q u a tely ’ p re se n ts th e iss u e s in t he ca s e w i t houtconfus i ng orm i s l eadi ng the j ury . ” U n itedS ta tes v . E llis , 156 F. 3d 493, 498 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . J acobs on ci t es t o P a c h e c o v . T h e C o a ts C o ., 26 F. 3d 418, 422 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , and Sheldon v. W es tB end Equi

pm ent C or p. , 7 1 8 F . 2 d 6 0 3 , 6 0 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ), a s e sta b lish in g th a t u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w th e “ in ten d e d u se ” o f a p ro d u c t in c lu d e s a ll uses “r easona blyforeseeabl e” byt he m anu facturer . H ow ever, the reasoning of these10

c a s e s w a s e x p lic itly re

je c te d b yth e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt . P a. D ep’ tof G en. Servs. , 898 A . 2d at603- 04. W e or di nar i l yar e bound bythe publ i s hed dec i s i ons of pr i or pan el s of t his cou rtun l ess the h oldi ng i s und erm i ned bya subseq uen tS up rem e C ou rtcase o r o v e rr u le d b yth is c o u rt s ittin g e n b a n c . N at i onw i de I

ns . C o. v. P at t ers on , 953 F. 2d 44, 46 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . H ow ever , w hen appl y i ng s t at e l aw , w e ar e fr ee t o r eexa m i ne the v a lid ityo f

o u r p rio r sta te la w in terp re tatio n s in lig h t o f su b se q u e n t d e c isio n s o f th e sta te s u p re m e c o u rt . Id . H er e, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeci s i on i n D epar tm ent of G ener alSer vi ces w as i s s ued af t erouropi ni ons i n P achec o and Sheldon , an d sp e c if ica lly re je c ts th e irra tio n a le . 8 9 8 A .2 d a t 6 0 3 -0 4 . A s not ed above , t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ti n D epar tm ent of G ener al Ser vi ces sta ted th a t “a m a n u f a c tu re r c a n b e d e e m e d liab le o n lyf o r h a rm th a t o c c u rs in connec t i on w i t h a pr oduct ’ s i nt ended us e byan i nt ended us er . ” Id . at 6 0 0 . T h e c o u rt in t hatcas e r ej ect ed the tr i al court ’ s j ur yi ns t ruct i on author i zi ng cons i der at i on of “for es eea bi l i t y , ” hol di ng t hat , w i t h l i m i t ed exc ept i ons , the “f or es eea bl e mi s us e of a pr oductw i l l nots uppor ta s t r i ctl i abi l i t ycl ai m . ” Id . at601. T her efor e, the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o om i t“for es eea bi l i t y ” fr om i t s j uryi ns t ruct i on on t he def i ni t i on of

“ d e sig n d e f

e c t” p ro p e rlya p p rise d th e ju ryo f th e a p p lica b le la w , an d th e D istric t C o u rt d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng J acobs on’ s m ot i on fora new tr i al on t hi s gr ound. C . A dm is s i on of

E vi dence of

P l ai nt i f f’s C ontr i but or

y N egl igence W hil e Jacob son’s br i ef m enti on s contr i bu t oryneg l i gen ce i n the st at em ent of fact s,11

i tdoes notr efe rt o i tagai n. B M W corr ect l ynot es that“an a r gum entcons i s t i ng of no m or e than a c oncl us or yas s ert i on . . . w i l l be dee m ed w ai ved. ” R eynolds v. W agner , 128 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A s w e h a v e p re v io u slysta ted , “a p p e llate c o u rts g e n e ra lly s houl d notaddr es s l egal i s s ues t hatt he part i es have notdevel oped thr ough pr oper br i efi ng. ” S. W

. P a. G r ow th A l l i ance v. B r ow ner , 1 2 1 F .3 d 1 0 6 , 1 2 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Jacobso n h as therefore w ai ved t his argum ent and w e need no tcon si der i t s m eri t s. I V . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l A FFIRM the O r derand J udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt.