In Barton v Lowes Home Centers Inc, 2015 PA Super 203, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a products liability plaintiff who alternatively pleads design and manufacturing defects and failure to warn has sufficiently pleaded a products liability claim, and that the plaintiff does not need to disprove or foreclose non-defective reasons for the product’s causing of injury at the pleadings stage.

Barton’s lawnmower exploded.  The lawnmower, that included an engine manufactured by Kohler, was manufactured by Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products and sold by Lowe’s.  Barton alleged that, after using a lawnmower for the first time and storing it in his barn, the engine ran too hot, melting fuel lines and causing the lawn mower to explode and destroying the barn.

Lowe’s, Husqvarna, and Kohler (“Appellees”) filed preliminary objections to Barton’s third amended complaint, alleged that Barton had failed to state a viable products liability cause of action under theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty.  The trial court granted Appellees’ preliminary objections, finding that the complaint failed to state a claim for strict liability by failing to allege the existence of a defect in the lawn mower.

Barton filed a timely appeal in which he challenged the trial court’s order sustaining Appellees’ preliminary objections.  On appeal, the superior court reversed, ruling that the trial court applied too onerous a standard to Barton’s third amended complaint.  “The trial court seems to suggest that a plaintiff can only have a design defect action or a manufacturing defect action [Restatement (Second) of Torts, §] 402A [(1965)], but not both.  In fact, it is accepted practice for a plaintiff to proceed under more than one defect theory.”  Accordingly, Barton’s third amended complaint, expressly alleging both design and manufacturing defects as well as failure to warn defects, was sufficient to survive preliminary objections.   The superior court explained,

Experience teaches that when a brand new lawnmower catches fire or explodes after its first use, it could be the result of a defect in its design or manufacture, or in the failure of the retailer or manufacturer to provide proper warnings as to its use or maintenance.  A more precise identification of the design defect, manufacturing defect or failure-to-warn defect is a matter for discovery and reports from experts (and perhaps a fire marshal).  But in a complaint, it is only necessary to state the material facts in a concise and summary form.

The court further ruled that Barton sufficiently pleaded his breach of warranty claim. The trial court defined the lawn mower’s ordinary purpose too narrowly in requiring appellant to plead that the lawn mower was unfit to cut grass, ruling that the proper standard for an implied warranty was that goods perform in the way that such goods are expected to perform, including not bursting into flames after first use.  Finally, Barton’s negligent design/manufacture claims were also properly stated.   Barton adequately alleged that appellees had a duty to provide adequate instructions for the mower’s use and maintenance, since the inclusion of instructions gave the mower greater utility and the lack of same increased the risk of harm.  Thanks to Hillary Ladov for her contribution to this post.  Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.