Opinion ID: 771335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligent Failure to Test.

Text: 20 Oddi alleged that Ford and Grumman were negligent for [f]ailing to do adequate, necessary and proper testing of the vehicle prior to the sale which would have revealed the dangerous condition of the product. Complaint, at P 4r. Oddi refers to this theory of recovery as the tort of negligent failure to test. Oddi's Br. at 26. He claims that its elements are as set forth in 1836 Callowhill Street v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 460 (E. D. Pa. 1993). Oddi argues that under 1836 Callowhill Street he can recover under this theory if he establishes that: (1) the manufacturer has a duty to test its product; (2) the manufacturer breached that duty, i. e., the manufacturer did not test; and (3) the breach or the failure to test was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Oddi's Br. at 26. 21 In 1836 Callowhill, the court made several assumptions for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The court assumed that defendant's product was defective, that the defect caused the alleged damage, and that the defendant had a duty to adequately test the defective product to discover the defect. Nevertheless, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant as to plaintiff's negligence claim. The court concluded that plaintiff did not offer[ ] sufficient evidence of a breach of that duty [to] create a genuine dispute of fact. Id. at 465. Consequently, although the court stated, that [n]egligent failure to test is cognizable as a common law negligence theory, 819 F. Supp. at 464-65, that decision cannot fairly be said to support the proposition that a manufacturer has a general duty to test a product to determine if it is defective. 22 Therefore, even if 1836 Callowhill were precedential and correctly stated the law of Pennsylvania, we would still be compelled to conclude that Oddi has cited no authority that establishes the principle that a manufacturer has a general duty to test its product. We have found no authority to support Oddi's contention that Pennsylvania recognizes an independent tort for negligent failure to test, and Oddi has offered none. 23 Rather, it appears that Oddi's negligent failure to test claim is, at bottom, nothing more than a routine products liability case based on negligence, and that the claimed negligence is the failure to test. Under Pennsylvania law, in order for an injured party to establish a cause of action against a manufacturer based upon the latter's breach of a duty, the plaintiff must prove, not only that the product was defective and that the defect caused his[/her] injury, but in addition, [the plaintiff must prove] that in manufacturing or supplying the product the defendant failed to exercise due care. Dambacher v. Malis, 485 A.2d 408, 424 (Pa. Super. 1984). Thus, Oddi must first establish that the vehicle was defective. 24 Thus, whether we view Oddi's theory as crashworthiness or negligence arising from a failure to test, he must establish a defect in the design of the truck in order to recover, and he must then show that that defect caused his injuries. As noted above, he attempted to do this through the proffered expert testimony of John N. Noettl and Leon Kazarian, but the district court refused to admit their expert testimony. 25