Opinion ID: 739908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 13 Pennsylvania early on adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the law of strict products liability in Pennsylvania. Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 427, 220 A.2d 853, 854 (Pa.1966). Section 402A of the Restatement provides in relevant part: 14 (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer ... is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. 15 Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). To establish a case under the strict liability doctrine, a plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, and that the defect proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 462 Pa. 83, 93-94, 337 A.2d 893, 898 (1975). 16 In Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 480 Pa. 547, 558, 391 A.2d 1020, 1026 (1978), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the phrases 'defective condition' and 'unreasonably dangerous' as used in the Restatement formulation are terms of art invoked when strict liability is appropriate. The Court also announced that the threshold determination as to whether the product's condition justifies placing the risk of loss on the manufacturer or supplier is a question of law for the court to resolve. Id., 391 A.2d at 1026. If the court determines that the product is defective under the facts as alleged, then the case is submitted to the jury to determine whether the facts indicate that when the product left the manufacturer's control it lack[ed] any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possess[ed] any feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use. Id. at 559, 391 A.2d at 1027. The court in Azzarello, however, did not articulate the standard for determining whether the risk of loss should be placed on the manufacturer, except to note that it was a matter of social policy: 17 Should an ill-conceived design which exposes the user to the risk of harm entitle one injured by the product to recover? Should adequate warnings of the dangerous propensities of an article insulate one who suffers injuries from those propensities? When does the utility of a product outweigh the unavoidable danger it may pose? These are questions of law and their resolution depends upon social policy. 18 Id. at 558, 391 A.2d at 1026; see also Ellen Wertheimer, Azzarello Agonistes: Bucking the Strict Products Liability Tide, 66 Temp.L.Rev. 419, 424 (1993) (Azzarello indisputably failed to provide courts with guidelines for determining precisely when and why strict liability should attach.); David G. Owen, Rethinking the Policies of Strict Products Liability, 33 Vand.L.Rev. 681, 686-87 (1980) (Azzarello did very little to help clarify the meaning of defectiveness and its proper standards of measure) (the [Azzarello ] court nowhere explicitly connects the test of liability chosen--'unsafe for the intended use'--to even the weak policies that it does set forth).