Court Opinion

ID: 9630210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:05:05.149023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:33.864758
License: Public Domain

FORD ELLIOTT, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority’s decision to affirm the order granting summary judgment based on its determination that appellant was unable to establish that Anchor Hocking manufactured the subject pitcher.
However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s discussion of, and reliance upon, Roselli v. General Electric Co., 410 Pa.Super. 223, 599 A.2d 685 (1991), appeal discontinued (1993). As the author of Troy v. Kampgrounds of America, Inc., 399 Pa.Super. 41, 581 A.2d 665 (1990), I agree with Judge Del Sole’s dissent in Roselli. As Judge Del Sole correctly observes:
In a case such as this where the product no longer exists and cannot be examined by either party, the plaintiff may recover under the ‘malfunction’ theory of product liability, which concerns circumstantial evidence of a product malfunction. This theory ‘permits a plaintiff to prove defect in a product with evidence of the occurrence of a malfunction and with evidence eliminating abnormal use or reasonable secondary causes for the malfunction.’ Troy v. Kampgrounds of America, Inc., 399 Pa.Super. 41, 581 A.2d 665 (1990).
Roselli, 410 Pa.Super. at 230, 599 A.2d at 689 (dissent by Del Sole, J.).
*55Thus, to the extent that the majority relies upon Roselli to affirm the order granting summary judgment, I disagree. I believe that had appellant been able to identify Anchor Hocking as the manufacturer of the pitcher, then under the “malfunction theory” this case would have survived beyond the summary judgment stage. It is only because of appellant’s failure to identify the manufacturer that I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the order granting summary judgment.