Source: https://m.openjurist.org/981/f2d/107
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 09:30:58
Document Index: 116995184

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5536', '§ 914', '§ 402', '§ 4477', '§ 76', '§ 80', '§ 80']

981 F2d 107 Fleck v. Kdi Sylvan Pools Inc | OpenJurist
981 F. 2d 107 - Fleck v. Kdi Sylvan Pools Inc
981 F2d 107 Fleck v. Kdi Sylvan Pools Inc
981 F.2d 107
61 USLW 2468, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,380
KDI SYLVAN POOLS, INC., a/k/a Sylvan Pools; Muskin, Inc.;
Nichols Swim Pools, Inc.; James Hubert,
S.K. PLASTICS, INC.; Doughboy Recreational, Inc., a
Division of Hoffinger Industries, Inc.,
ATREO MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; Poseidon Pools, Inc.;
Poseidon Pools of America, Inc.; Gibraltar Factors Corp.;
the Gibraltar Corporation; S & V Pools, Inc.; Esther
Williams Swimming Pool Company; Esther Williams Pools,
Inc.; and Esther Williams all Aluminum Swimming Pool Company
Richard Fleck and Diane Fleck, Appellants (Two Cases).
Nichols Swim Pools, Inc.; James Hubert
Division of Hoffinger Industries, Inc.
Hoffinger Industries, Inc., (Incorrectly Designated as
Doughboy Recreational, Inc., a Division of
Hoffinger Industries, Inc.), Appellant
Inc.; and Esther Williams all Aluminum Swimming Pool
Company; Nichols Swim Pools, Inc., Appellants.
Gibraltar Corporation, Appellant.
S & V Pools, Inc. and Poseidon Pools of America, Inc.,
Appellants (Two Cases).
Nos. 91-2045, 91-2090, 92-1001, 92-1077, 92-1090, 92-1137,
92-1138 and 92-1165.
Argued July 31, 1992.
Sur Petition for Rehearing Dec. 31, 1992.
Absent clear guidance from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we must predict how it would decide the issues and will, when persuasive, rely on decisions of the intermediate appellate court, unless we are convinced that the supreme court would decide otherwise. West v. American Telephone & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237, 61 S.Ct. 179, 183, 85 L.Ed. 139 (1940); McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 622 F.2d 657, 662 (3d Cir.1980).
42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. Whether the directed verdict is proper is a question of Pennsylvania law. We exercise plenary review. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Insurance Co. of N. America, 724 F.2d 369, 371 (3d Cir.1983).
We may, however, review a waived issue under exceptional circumstances. Franki Found Co. v. Alger-Rau & Assoc., Inc., 513 F.2d 581, 586 (3d Cir.1975). Exceptional circumstance have been recognized where the public interest requires that the new issue be heard on appeal or when manifest injustice would result from the failure to consider the new issue, Altman v. Altman, 653 F.2d 755, 758 (3d Cir.1981), or where it is apparent that counsel failed to object to a fundamental and highly prejudicial error resulting in a miscarriage of justice, Freifield v. Hennessy, 353 F.2d 97, 99 (3d Cir.1965).
When a litigant takes an unequivocal position at trial, he cannot on appeal assume a contrary position simply because the decision in retrospect was a tactical mistake, or perhaps a candid but regretted concession. Meiners v. Moriarity, 563 F.2d 343, 352 (7th Cir.1977); Alexander v. Town & Country Estates, Inc., 535 F.2d 1081, 1082 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1976). See Childs v. Franco, 563 F.Supp. 290, 292 (E.D.Pa.1983) ("If unequivocal, an admission of counsel during the course of trial is binding on the client."); Sule v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd., 121 Pa.Commw. 242, 550 A.2d 847, 849 (1988) ("It is well settled that an admission of an attorney during the course of a trial is binding upon his client."). We find no miscarriage of justice or any other exceptional circumstances, and hold that Hoffinger waived the right to contest the district court's directed verdict for Nichols. In any event, we have also reviewed the substance of Hoffinger's arguments and conclude they are meritless.
The general rule is that an indemnitee may recover attorney's fees and costs incurred in defense of the liability indemnified against from the indemnitor. A.C. Israel Commodity Co. v. American-West African Line, Inc., 397 F.2d 170, 172 (3d Cir.1968). Pennsylvania law is no different. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has favorably cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 914(2) (1976), which provides:
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hosp., Inc., 502 Pa. 241, 465 A.2d 1231, 1235 (1983). The court has also held that "an indemnitee may recover attorney's fees and costs from the indemnitor notwithstanding the fact that these expenses have already been paid by the indemnitee's insurance carrier." Boiler Eng'r & Supply Co. v. General Controls, Inc., 443 Pa. 44, 277 A.2d 812, 814 (1971). The court, however, limited these fees to defense litigation and did not extend them to the indemnification litigation. Id. Accord Fisher v. United States, 299 F.Supp. 1, 34 (E.D.Pa.1969), reversed on other grounds, 441 F.2d 1288 (3d Cir.1971); Papas v. Kohler Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp. 1272, 1273 (M.D.Pa.1984). Thus, in an indemnification action under Pennsylvania law, the indemnitee is entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred in the underlying defense litigation.
Unlike the assumption of the risk defense, which requires actual subjective knowledge, Berkebile, 337 A.2d at 901; Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc., 374 Pa.Super. 118, 542 A.2d 525, 533 (1988), whether a danger is open and obvious is an objective inquiry, not dependent upon the actual knowledge of the user or his actual awareness of the danger. Sherk, 427 A.2d at 661 (1981); Ellis, 545 A.2d at 911, quoting Sherk, 427 A.2d at 661. We inquire whether knowledge of the danger would be possessed by "the ordinary consumer who purchases [or uses the product], with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." Sherk, 427 A.2d at 661, quoting Restatement § 402A, comment (i). For instance, "[i]f the product is one customarily used by children, the danger must be one which children would be likely to recognize and appreciate in order to prevent them from recovering for a product related injury on the grounds that the danger was open and obvious." Id.
Depth markers and warning labels convey crucial information about the dangers of the pool. They tell one who might think the pool is deep enough that indeed it is not. These measures are necessary to avoid grievous bodily injuries. In Mucowski v. Clark, 404 Pa.Super. 197, 590 A.2d 348 (1991), the pool lacked warnings, but the plaintiff had used the pool before and knew its depth. The court held that plaintiff's "foolhardiness," diving into a pool that he knew was four feet deep, was the legal cause of the injury. The court cited and discussed these cases: Hensley v. Muskin Corp., 65 Mich.App. 662, 238 N.W.2d 362 (1975); Dailey v. Major Pool Equip. Corp., 30 N.Y.2d 846, 335 N.Y.S.2d 89, 286 N.E.2d 471 (1972); Colosimo v. May Dep't Store Co., 466 F.2d 1234 (3d Cir.1972). In each of these cases, plaintiffs knew that the pool was shallow. Here, of course, Fleck thought that this pool was six feet deep. Because the pool was surrounded by elaborate decking, which concealed its sides, a jury could reasonably have concluded that Fleck's perception was plausible. Based upon the appearance of the pool from the photographs in the record, as surrounded by the elaborate decking, and Hubert's testimony that sometimes the pool looked twelve feet deep, a jury could have reasonably concluded that such a perception was plausible. While Fleck may still have been imprudent to do what he did, we cannot say that "foolhardiness" was the cause of the accident. Fleck testified that had there been warnings about the depth of the pool or the danger of diving into this pool, he would not have attempted a dive.
It is true that the determination of a duty to warn necessarily applies negligence principles, but it is the defendant's "negligence" that is scrutinized. See Ellis, 545 A.2d at 913 (inquiry into duty to warn revolves around whether "the supplier knew, or ... should have known, of the danger, or where the dangerous use ... was reasonably foreseeable"). Moreover, even if a plaintiff's negligence is in any way relevant to determine a duty to warn, that does not mean that it is also relevant to damages. The argument that Fleck is barred from recovery under the Comparative Negligence Act in this strict liability case, where the jury expressly found that the product sold was defective, is utterly without merit. Moran v. G. & W.H. Corson, Inc., 402 Pa.Super. 101, 586 A.2d 416, 419 (1991) (the Comparative Negligence Act does not apply to actions sounding in strict liability). See Dillinger v. Caterpillar, Inc., 959 F.2d 430, 435-44 (3d Cir.1992) (concluding, after a thorough review of Pennsylvania law, that evidence of plaintiff's negligence is inadmissible in a strict liability case); McCown v. International Harvester Co., 463 Pa. 13, 342 A.2d 381, 382 (1975) (rejecting both contributory negligence as a defense to strict liability and a comparative negligence scheme of damage apportionment); Berkebile, 337 A.2d at 901 (plaintiff cannot be precluded from recovery in a strict liability case due to his own negligence); Remy v. Michael D's Carpet Outlets, 391 Pa.Super. 436, 444-46, 571 A.2d 446, 451 (1990) (plaintiff's comparative negligence is inadmissible in product liability action), allocatur granted, 527 Pa. 634, 592 A.2d 1301 (1991).
The argument that the amount of the jury verdict should be reduced by Fleck's comparative negligence is equally frivolous. Hoffinger relies on Lewis v. Timco, Inc., 716 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir.1983), which held that notwithstanding the strict liability theory of the case, comparative fault of the plaintiff is applied to reduce the liability of the manufacturer of a defective product. This case is significant, Hoffinger says, because the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Walton v. Avco Corp., 383 Pa.Super 518, 557 A.2d 372, 387 (1989), relied on it to hold that a trier of fact can employ a comparative causation doctrine when apportioning liability between two strictly liable defendants.
The Flecks' representation to the bankruptcy court judicially estops them in their action against Nichols because they cannot assert a position in this proceeding inconsistent with the one they previously asserted. Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414, 419 (3d Cir.1988). See generally 18 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 4477 (1981).
Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689, 15 S.Ct. 555, 558, 39 L.Ed. 578 (1895). Judicial estoppel looks to the connection between the litigant and the judicial system. Oneida, 848 F.2d at 419; Delgrosso v. Spang & Co., 903 F.2d 234, 241 (3d Cir.1990). It preserves the integrity of the courts by preventing litigants from "playing fast and loose with the courts." Scarano v. Central R.R. Co., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir.1953). See Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 212 (1st Cir.1987); Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 911 F.2d 1214, 1220 (6th Cir.1990). Thus, it is intended to protect the courts rather than the litigants. In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir.1990).
The bankruptcy court's order makes clear that that court lifted the automatic stay because the Flecks represented that any judgment will be limited to the insurance proceeds. A party who petitions a bankruptcy court to lift a stay by agreeing to limit the recovery against the protected debtor cannot later collect in its entirety on a judgment that exceeds the agreed upon limit. See Chance v. Board of Examiners, 561 F.2d 1079, 1092 (2d Cir.1977) (parties who make an agreement with the court are bound by their representations).
Payment by the indemnitee to the third person "may have been of the entire amount or it may have been a partial payment." Restatement § 76 comment c. So, where one is entitled to be indemnified, under Pennsylvania law that person "should receive reimbursement limited to the amount of his net outlay properly expended because the payor became a party to the transaction through the fault of the other." Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 471 F.Supp. 1059, 1067 (M.D.Pa.1979), affirmed without opinion 620 F.2d 287 (3d Cir.1980). See Restatement § 80 (the indemnitee "is entitled to reimbursement, limited to the amount of his net outlay properly expended"). Payment is limited to the amount paid because "[a]lthough there is no fiduciary relation between the parties, the relation is one which is regarded as involving mutual confidence and it would be unfair for the payor to profit at the expense of the principal obligor." Restatement § 80 comment (a).