top of page


Sales Data Alone Does Not Determine Venue

December 8, 2023

Share to:

When it comes to determining an appropriate venue, national sales data cannot be the sole determining factor in a quantity analysis, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last month in the case of Hangey v. Husqvarna.  In Hangey, plaintiffs Ronald and Rosemary Hangey filed a complaint against Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc. (“HPP”), Trumbauer’s Lawn and Recreation, Inc (“Trumbauer’s”) and others in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County.  The Hangeys alleged that Ronald was thrown off his mower outside his home.  The mower then rolled over Ronald’s legs with the blades moving at high speed, thus causing severe and catastrophic injuries to his legs.  The Hangeys subsequently amended their complaint to include other Husqvarna entities.


HPP and Trumbauer’s filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint, arguing venue in Philadelphia was improper. The trial court conducted a quality-quantity analysis required under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp. The trial court found HPP’s activities satisfied the quality prong but not the quantity prong, as only $75,310 out of HPP’s $1.393 billion in national revenue came from their direct sales in Philadelphia County (.005%).  The case was then transferred to Bucks County.


The Superior Court reversed, holding that the percentage of a defendant’s business in a particular county cannot be the sole evidence relevant to a quantity analysis.  Instead, courts must consider all of the evidence presented, including the scope of a defendant’s business, in determining the quantity prong.  Additionally, the Superior Court found that the sales amount was sufficient to be “considered habitual,” and ordered that venue was appropriate in Philadelphia. 


bottom of page