News
Pennsylvania Courts Further Divided on Restatement.
March 15, 2013
Share to:
<em>A</em>s previously <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/2012/08/twist-pennsylvania-products-law/">reported</a>, a growing rift has emerged between Pennsylvania’s state and federal courts regarding the applicability of the <i>Restatement (Third) of Torts </i>to product liability actions. True to form, a recent decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania further complicated matters when Judge Arthur J. Schwab declined to follow the Third Circuit’s ruling in <i>Covell v. Bell Sports, Inc.</i> and instead adopted the State Supreme Court’s adherence to the <i>Second Restatement</i>.
<p style="text-align: left;">In <i>Gilmore v. Ford Motor Company</i>, Judge Schwab previously ruled that the <i>Restatement (Second) of Torts </i>governed plaintiff’s claim of strict liability against Ford where the decedents were ejected from their 2000 Ranger pick-up.Ford took exception and moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Third Circuit’s decisions in <i>Covell </i>and <i>Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.</i> compelled the court to apply the <i>Restatement (Third) of Torts</i>. Despite Ford’s lofty citations, Judge Schwab <a href="http://pdf.wcmlaw.com/pdf/Gilmore.pdf">remained unconvinced</a> and held that because the Third Circuit’s ruling in <i>Sikkelee</i> was non-precedential, it was free to stand by the position that recent state decisions contradict the federal courts’ predisposition to the <i>Third Restatement</i>. Specifically, Judge Schwab implied that the relevant Third Circuit opinions were obsolete in light of two state Supreme Court decisions issued after <i>Covell</i> and <i>Sikkelee</i>where the court continued to apply the <i>Second Restatement</i>. As a result, Judge Schwab concluded that there was no change in Pennsylvania’s controlling law and endorsed the <i>Second Restatement</i>’s application by federal courts sitting in diversity. </p>
Although Judge Schwab’s district-level opinion is non-binding, it serves as a succinct, yet persuasive analysis of the tension between state and federal courts regarding the <i>Restatement</i>’s future in Pennsylvania. The opinion’s latent advocacy for comity between the courts should catalyze further consideration of the issue and, at a minimum, indicates that the debate is all but over.
Special thanks to Adam Gomez for his contributions to this post. For more information, please contact Paul Clark at pclark@wcmlaw.com.