Court Opinion

ID: 9472972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:16:03.586607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:15.335601
License: Public Domain

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part:
In this case, after the jury was unable to agree on Rooney’s claim against Federal, the district court declared a mistrial. It then proceeded to hold as a matter of law that the power press was not defective because it left Federal s custody without the foot-pedal bypass of the palm button safety feature. In making this determination, the district court relied on Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), which reserves to the court in a products liability case the question whether the product in question is “unreasonably dangerous,” the predicate for imposition of strict liability under section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of ’P°r^s-
However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear in Azzarello, that case does not change the fundamental allocation of questions of fact to juries. Azzarello reserves to courts only the policy determination whether, on the facts alleged by the plaintiff, imposition of strict liability would be appropriate. See id. at 558, 361 A.2d at 1026. The question whether a design de-feet exists, that is, whether the product “left the supplier’s control lacking an element necessary to make it safe for its intended use,” remains within the province of the jury. See id. at 559, 361 A.2d at 1027. See also Hammond v. International Harvester Co., 691 F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir.1982) (applying post-Azzarello Pennsylvania law); Holloway v. J.B. Systems, Ltd., 609 F.2d 1069, 1072 n. 7 (3d Cir.1979) (same).
It is clear, therefore, that the district court, should not have arrogated a question of fact to itself. Nevertheless, the majori- * uPholds C0U/Jt’s ref]tnbe" caufe dfldes that the addition by Roo-neys employer of the foot pedal to the power press constituted a “substantial modification” that, under section 402A(b) 0f the Restatement, insulates Federal from liability.
Under Pennsylvania law> only unforeseeaWe modifications in a duct will insulate itg manufacturer from strict produets liabil. ity> and the question whether such a sub. stantial change has been made is a factual issue to be determined by a jury. See Heckman v. Federal Press Co., 587 F.2d 612; 616 (3d Cir.1979); Cappasso v. Minster Machine Co. 532 F.2d 952, 955 (3d Cir.l976). See also Merriweather v. E.W. Bliss Co. 636 F.2d 42, 44 (3d Cir.1980) (holding that the question whether a change in a product is an unforeseeable “substantial modification” remains within the province of the jury under post-Azzarelio Pennsylvania law). Thus the majority’s holding in this case depends upon its resolution of a question of fact, and is tenable only if the evidence was such that no reasonable juror could have found that the foot-pedal modification was foreseeable to Federal in 1966, when the press was sold to Rooney’s employer.
The majority relies chiefly on the fact that Federal did not sell the foot pedal to Rooney’s employer.1 This fact seems scarcely relevant to the critical question of foreseeability, given the undisputed evidence that the press was designed to accept the foot-pedal modification, and that in 1966 and for some years thereafter Federal advertised and sold the by-pass foot pedal, Indeed, the majority concedes that “Feder*145al was aware that the machine could be modified for use by a foot pedal____” I fail to see how, in view of this, the majority is able to conclude that no basis exists in the record for a jury to find that the change was within Federal’s contemplation at the time that it sold the press. I would remand for a new trial on the issue of whether the press was defectively designed.2
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 .. . , ,, 1. The majority finds this case distinguishable from Capasso and Heckman on this basis. It is true, as the opinion in Capasso pointed out, that a finding that a modification was foreseeable would be "underscored by the contemporaneous purchase of the foot pedal,” 532 F.2d 952, but it hardly follows, as the majority holds, that contemporaneous purchase of a modification is necessary to a finding that the modification was foreseeable. Indeed, it strains both logic and ,. ’ , ,, ^ 0 com”°" 0 hold *at n° reaso11; able Jur°T could flnd that a manufacturer could f°resee *at a Producí designed to accept a speciñe modification might be so modified after purchase.

. I concur in the majority’s holding that judgment on the record in favor of Federal was appropriate on Rooney's failure-to-warn claim.