Court Opinion

ID: 9694620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:48:58.569313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:04.037957
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion because I believe it says the following:
I; The manufacturer of a defective component part which is placed in the stream of commerce and thereafter is the proximate cause of injury to the ultimate consumer is *585strictly liable, and remains so even though notice of the defect is given to the assembler who fails to take corrective action.
II. The assembler of component parts, including the defective component part, who places into the stream of commerce the finished product, with knowledge of the existence of the defective component part, is strictly liable for any injuries proximately caused by that defective component part to the ultimate consumer.
III. As between and among strictly liable defendants, any defendant who has settled with plaintiffs prior to verdict has settled for its pro-rata share of the verdict and is not entitled to contribution from any other defendant found strictly liable, whether the verdict is for a greater or lesser amount than the settlement amount.
The non-settling strictly liable defendants are obligated to the plaintiffs for a pro-rata share of the verdict and are not entitled to contribution from the settling, strictly liable defendants.
In the matter before us, Walton keeps the $922,355.00 settlement funds received from AVCO and also receives $445,601.50, plus delay damages from Hughes. Tincher keeps the $1,000,000.00 settlement funds received from AVCO and also receives $207,951.00, plus delay damages from Hughes. This result is in keeping with our opinion in Charles v. Giant Eagle, 513 Pa. 474, 522 A.2d 1 (1987).