Opinion ID: 2293263
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Common-Law Lawmaking Alternative

Text: To the degree a majority of the Court is not comfortable adopting the whole of Section 2 in this case, [21] there are other alternatives to leaving Azzarello in place while the Court continues to search for the perfect vehicle in which to devise a replacement scheme. For example, the Court could at least depart from Azzarello prospectively, thus clearing a path for our common pleas and intermediate appellate courts to consider the reasoned recommendations of the Third Restatement, as well as other reasoned alternatives and/or refinements. As the cases would move through the system, this Court inevitably would make selections to fill the void created by Azzarello's long tenure. [22] Undoubtedly, this approach would not be wholly satisfying to those who have long pursued a modernization of this Court's product-liability jurisprudence. It may well be, however, that the forum for timely, comprehensive solutions is with the political branch, which possesses the broader tools necessary to make better informed social policy decisions balancing the strong, competing interests involved in the product liability arena. [23] If the Court were to pursue the common-law lawmaking alternative, it could initially reaffirm the understanding, as succinctly expressed by one commentator, that [m]odern products liability law rests fundamentally on the premise that manufacturers are fairly held to answer in the courts for the basic safety of their products' designs. Owen, Design Defects, 73 MO. L.REV. at 291. Since the difficulties described above are with Azzarello and not Section 402A itself, Pennsylvania would remain a Section 402A jurisdiction. [24] The disapproval of Azzarello's no-negligence-in-strict-liability approach, however, should yield at least the non-exclusive set of consequences and considerations set forth in the addendum attached to this opinion as Appendix A.