Pennsylvania Manufacturing Defect Attorneys

Let's discuss some key cases that have shaped Pennsylvania state law regarding manufacturing defects.

In 1991, a plaintiff named Roselli sued the General Electric Company for making a defective coffeemaker. What made this case legally interesting was that the plaintiff had lost evidence supporting his claim against GE. The Superior Court determined that the absence of the broken coffeemaker made it difficult for the defendant to refute claims; as a result, the court agreed with a lower court decision that the matter should be dismissed.

Two years later, the matter DeWeese v. Anchor-Hocking came before Superior Court. In this case, the plaintiff had been hurt by a glass pitcher. Immediately following the accident/injury, he discarded the fragments of the pitcher and then proceeded to file a legal claim. Just like in Roselli, the Superior Court found the fact that the plaintiff had discarded key physical evidence to mean that the defendant couldn't provide an active defense; as a result, the case was dismissed.

The PA Superior Court has not always cited with defendants in Pennsylvania manufacturing defect cases in which plaintiffs have lost the evidence. Four years after DeWeese, a matter O'Donnell v. Big Yank Inc., came to the attention of Superior Court. In this matter, a plaintiff had lit his pants on fire and suffered severe injuries as a result. Since the pants were burned up, the defendant cited earlier case law (such as the Roselli and DeWeese decisions) to ask for summary judgment against the plaintiff. However, although the defendant won in trial court, the PA Superior Court actually reversed the lower court's decision by citing the fact that one need not examine the particular pair of burned pants to determine the product's general flammability.

CALL TODAY 866.735.2792