Opinion ID: 2297606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Present State of Pennsylvania Product Liability Law

Text: As in Schmidt and before, we again recognize the continuing state of disrepair in the arena of Pennsylvania strict-liability design defect law. See Schmidt, 608 Pa. at 352-55, 11 A.3d at 939-41. While, as Appellee notes, several Justices have favored review of the foundational questions in past decisions and have expressed their views as to the appropriate remedy, a majority consensus has not yet been attained in any case. Mr. Chief Justice Castille and this author also have advocated restraint in the acceptance of subsidiary issues, pending remediation of the foundational deficiencies. See Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc., 598 Pa. 594, 595, 959 A.2d 900, 901 (2008) (Saylor, J., joined by Castille, C.J., concurring in a denial of certification). As has been previously noted, [o]bviously, all Justices are not of a like mind on this subject, as this appeal involves subsidiary issues. Schmidt, 608 Pa. at 352 n. 13, 11 A.3d at 939 n. 13.