Opinion ID: 3009755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 45 (App. Div. 1982)], and the

Text: unreasonably dangerous standard in products liability cases (we predicted the Restatement would not apply [Beron v. Kramer-Trenton Co., 402 F. Supp. 1268 (E.D. Pa. 1975), aff'd, 538 F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1976)], but it does [Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978)]. Sloviter, 78 Va. L. Rev. at 1679-80.0 0 For additional examples of our difficulty predicting state law, and a call for the State of Pennsylvania to adopt a certification procedure, see Stella L. Smetanka, To Predict or To Certify Unresolved Questions of State Law: A Proposal for Federal Court Certification to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Temp. L. Rev. 725 (1995). In particular, Smetanka describes the Third Circuit's troubles in assessing the scope of Pennsylvania's public-policy exception to at-will employment in the wake of Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1974). For recent examples of this difficulty, see Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611 (3d Cir. 1992), and Smith v. Calgon Carbon Corp., 917 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1990). 31 New Jersey, in failing to adopt a certification procedure, is in a small minority. At present, forty-three state supreme courts, the court of last resort in Puerto Rico, and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia can answer certified questions of law from federal circuit courts. See American Judicature Society (AJS), Certification of Questions of Law: Federalism in Practice 15-17 (1995).0 Granting certification power is also supported by the federal judiciary's Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts. Recommendation 8 of that Plan states: The states should be encouraged to adopt certification procedures, where they do not currently exist, under which federal court (both trial and appellate) could submit novel or difficult state law questions to state supreme courts. Committee on Long Range Planning, Judicial Conference of the United States, Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts 32 (March 1995).0 Certification is not a panacea, and can inflict delay on litigants. See Geri Yonover, A Kinder, Gentler Erie: Reining in the Use of Certification, 47 Ark. L. Rev. 305 (1994). But this is an argument for exercising the authority wisely --not for denying it altogether. 0 [hereinafter AJS Report]. The states vary widely on whether the source of this authority is a constitutional provision, statute, court rule -- or a combination of the three. Id. The states also differ considerably on their standard for accepting certified questions. Eleven states require that the certified question be determinative of the litigation; twenty-six states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia require only that the question may be determinative; and six others require that there be -- or appear to be -- no controlling precedent or authority. AJS Report, supra, at 18-20. 0 Recommendation 8 was adopted by the Judicial Conference as part of the approved long range plan on September 19, 1995. 32 Fifty-four percent of United States Circuit judges responding to the AJS survey indicated they were willing or very willing to certify questions, AJS Report, supra, at 43, and eighty percent of state supreme court justice said they were willing or very willing to answer these questions. AJS Report, supra, at 46. Ninety-five percent of the United States