In DeJesus v. Knight Industries, the Third Circuit revisited the continuing debate between the Third Restatement’s modern view of product liability law and the Commonwealth’s unique and, at times, questionable interpretation of Section 402(a) of the Second Restatement.  In Dejesus, plaintiff was injured when an allegedly defective lift table designed by Knight Industries caused another piece of machinery to fall on him.  Plaintiff argued that Knight Industries defectively designed the lift table by failing to include appropriate audio or visual warnings that would alert users of the risk of falling objects.  On summary judgment, however, the United States District Court found that the evidence failed to sufficiently establish plaintiff’s theories under the Restatement (Third) of Torts that requires product manufacturers to take reasonable steps in safeguarding against foreseeable risks of harm.

For all intents and purposes, the conventional appeal to the Third Circuit that followed should have been denied in light of the Court’s long-standing belief that the Third Restatement dictates Pennsylvania product liability law.  Nevertheless, while the appeal was pending, DeJesus benefited from the highly anticipated decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex where Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the application of the Restatement’s reasonableness standard in favor of a bespoke interpretation of Section 402(a).  In deference to the Commonwealth, therefore, the Third Circuit finally reversed its position on the primacy of the Third Restatement and found that further proceedings would be needed to determine whether Knight Industries’s alleged lack of warnings could meet the Tincher standard.

All told, the Third Circuit’s ruling in DeJesus is not a watershed comment on the substance of Pennsylvania’s product law.  However, past Pennsylvania product cases were plagued by inconsistent results, depending on whether the case was venued in federal court.  In the wake of DeJesus, it appears that the Third Circuit has brought the two judicial systems into sync as litigants now begin to explore how exactly Tincher will impact product liability law in Pennsylvania.

Thanks to Adam Gomez for his contribution.  Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.