Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Products Liability Design Defect Cases

Just before Christmas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a lump of coal to products liability defendants: Sullivan v. Werner Co., 2023 WL 8859656 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), affirming a lower court ruling that barred evidence of a product manufacturer’s compliance with government and industry standards in a strict liability design defect case. The lower courts held that such evidence goes to due care and is relevant only to negligence, not strict liability. The affirmance appears to support the exclusion of such evidence in design defect cases based on a risk-utility theory, but leaves uncertainty for the future because only three justices joined the principal opinion; a fourth justice concurred with the result but concluded the record was inadequate to resolve the legal issue, while two others dissented.

Plaintiff sued the maker of a mobile scaffold which collapsed. Defendant served an expert report that relied in part on government (OSHA) and industry (ANSI) standards. Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of compliance with those standards, relying mainly on Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987), which excluded such evidence in strict liability cases. But Defendant argued the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), undermined Lewis by overruling Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), a decision that had taken an extremely narrow view of the relevant facts in strict liability claims under section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. Tincher held that section 402A remained Pennsylvania law but “overruled Azzarello’s narrow construction . . . that prevented the jury from considering negligence-related rhetoric and concepts . . . .” Nevertheless, the trial court in Sullivan granted the motion in limine and an appellate court affirmed. Sullivan v. Werner Co., 253 A.3d 730 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Continue reading “Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Products Liability Design Defect Cases”

EU Reaches Legislative Deal on Proposed ‘Digital Age’ Updates to Product Liability Directive

Last week, the European Union made a significant breakthrough towards its goal of overhauling the 40-year-old Product Liability Directive for the demands of the “digital” age and modern economy. To amend the directive, the elected European Parliament and the European Council (comprised of government representatives of the 28 member states) must agree on final language and separately pass the draft legislation through their respective bodies. After extensive legislative efforts and negotiations, the European Council (currently led by the Government of Spain) and the European Parliament issued press releases announcing that they have reached a political agreement regarding the proposed updates to the directive.

Continue reading “EU Reaches Legislative Deal on Proposed ‘Digital Age’ Updates to Product Liability Directive”

Amended FRE 702 Arrives in MDL Practice: S.D.N.Y. Excludes Plaintiffs’ Experts in Acetaminophen MDL

The Committee Notes to the newly implemented amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 make clear that the “[j]udicial gatekeeping” of expert evidence is “essential.”  Federal courts in New York have played an important role in pioneering and developing this concept.  Indeed, the idea of courts as gatekeepers in the expert context finds its roots in the Eastern District of New York, with the late Chief Judge Weinstein coining the term in a 1985 opinion in In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation.  Three decades later, the Southern District of New York offered one of the most thorough illustrations of careful judicial gatekeeping in In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. II).  Now, New York can also call itself home to the first MDL-wide decision to exclude experts under Rule 702’s new formulation.

Continue reading “Amended FRE 702 Arrives in MDL Practice: S.D.N.Y. Excludes Plaintiffs’ Experts in Acetaminophen MDL”

Something to Celebrate: A Brief Guide to the FRE 702 Amendments

Fun fact:  There are 23 holidays that can be celebrated today, December 1st.  Some, like Rosa Parks Day and World AIDS Day, are solemn and serious.  Others are silly and fun, like National Peppermint Bark Day and National Christmas Lights Day.  And then there are those that are downright strange, like Bifocals at the Monitor Liberation Day.  (No, we didn’t make that up.)  But for those of us who practice in the federal courts, we can add one more celebration to this esteemed list.

Today, the long-anticipated amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, governing admissibility of expert opinion evidence, finally take formal effect.  The amendments were unanimously approved by the Advisory Committee over two and a half years ago.  Courts have been citing the proposed amendments since shortly after they were first approved.  On the surface, the amendments to the text of Rule 702 itself may appear relatively modest.  Indeed, at least one court has observed that the new language “clearly echoes the existing law on the issue.”  Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268 (4th Cir. 2021).  But there is more to these new amendments than initially meets the eye.  In order to understand and effectively use the amendments, parties and litigators must understand and use the history and the Committee Note explaining the amendments.

Continue reading “Something to Celebrate: A Brief Guide to the FRE 702 Amendments”

In Case You Missed It – Summer 2023

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Experts Who Cannot Articulate a Standard Cannot Opine That a Defendant Failed to Meet the Standard

By Eric M. Friedman

Burns v. Sherwin-Williams Co. is the latest in a line of cases that apply variations on a simple, common-sense theme — an expert who cannot articulate the applicable standard should not be allowed to opine that a defendant failed to meet the applicable standard. Such testimony is not a “shaky but admissible” opinion to be attacked on cross-examination; it is internally inconsistent, is inherently unreliable, and should be excluded under Rule 702.

Courts Are Citing the Rule 702 Amendments — And Litigants Should, Too

By Christin Jaye Eaton and Eric M. Friedman

Though the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 have not officially taken effect yet, courts already have begun to cite them, echoing the Advisory Committee’s sentiment that the amendments will not change the substance of the law as it was meant to be applied, but that many courts have not been applying it correctly. Litigants should follow suit, citing both the amendments and the Advisory Committee’s notes to alert courts that old precedent — particularly “weight, not admissibility” cases — may not be consistent with newly amended Rule 702.

Can a Treating Physician Opine on Causation? Eleventh Circuit Says It’s About Intent, Not Content

By Eric M. Friedman and Ross W. Johnson

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires witnesses who are “retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case” — i.e., “retained” experts — to prepare and sign a report that discloses “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” In contrast, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) imposes less arduous disclosure requirements on non-retained experts and calls on the party, not the expert, to make those disclosures. As the Eleventh Circuit recently noted in Cedant v. United States, “an expert’s status as a retained witness depends on the original purpose of his retention.” As was the case before Cedant, litigants would be wise to support critical elements of their claims and defenses with testimony from a retained expert and not assume a court will allow a non-retained expert to supply what is needed.

EU’s Proposed Product Liability Directive – More Trick than Treat?

Americans love a good scare on Halloween.  But, of course – with ancient castles, centuries of folklore, and actual Transylvania, our friends in the European Union know how to celebrate the spooky season just as well as we do.  Unfortunately, there’s more than ghost stories to send a shiver down your spine in the EU these days.  This month, a joint committee of the European Parliament voted on new amendments to the proposed “digital age” update of the Product Liability Directive, which was initially enacted in the 1980s.  On the one hand, the proposal seems like a treat with its efforts to modernize the product liability framework to account for the changing product landscape and to address access issues for consumers.  But many European business leaders caution that this is more trick than treat.  Among other things, there are concerns that the traditional burden of proof requirements and safeguards on evidentiary disclosures will vanish into thin air.  Concerns abound that the proposals won’t benefit consumers or industry, but rather lawyers and litigation funders.  Scary stuff, indeed.

Continue reading “EU’s Proposed Product Liability Directive – More Trick than Treat?”