Defense Digest

Adequate Safety Warnings May Preclude Strict Products Liability Under Pennsylvania Law

In Gigus v. Giles & Ransome, Inc., 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 19 (2005), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the trial court's granting of a compulsory non-suit at the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case-in-chief based upon a theory of strict products liability. The appellate court held that a product is neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous when it is safe for use if its warnings are followed.

The plaintiff was injured while operating a hydraulic hammer and tool point during the course of her employment. While chopping rocks with the equipment, a piece of the hammer tool point severed, traveled into the cab of the excavator, and struck the plaintiff in the shoulder. Importantly, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff failed to utilize the safety glass windshield that accompanied the excavator.

At trial, plaintiffs' counsel argued that the product was unsafe because it lacked certain warnings and a Lexan shield. The plaintiffs withdrew all negligence claims. The trial judge noted that no evidence was presented by the plaintiffs to establish that the laminated safety glass windshield of the excavator would have failed to protect the plaintiff from her injury had it been in place. Moreover, a warning sticker affixed to the side of the windshield stated that the operator must be protected by a suitable shield from flying debris that could cause serious or fatal injury. The label also had a diagram showing the proper use of the windshield to protect the operator from injury caused by a flying object.

The trial court found that the plaintiff ignored the clear warnings and operated the excavator without securing the windshield in place. It noted that the plaintiff conceded during the trial that she knew the machinery was to be operated with the windshield in the closed position, yet she failed to do so. The trial judge granted a non-suit at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania emphasized that it is presumed under Pennsylvania law that adequate safety warnings will be read and obeyed. The appellate panel further commented that it was the plaintiff's burden to show that, had the windshield been in place at the time of the accident, the safety glass would have been insufficient to protect her from the injury she suffered. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, no such evidence was presented at the trial. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the defendant manufacturer was not required to provide additional warnings "against dangers that may arise if the stated warnings are not heeded." The Gigus Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the use of a Lexan shield was necessary and that additional warnings were required. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court in dismissing the plaintiffs' case was affirmed.

The Gigus opinion is helpful in the defense of products liability claims where the plaintiff fails to utilize available safety equipment as instructed by the manufacturer and fails to heed adequate safety warnings. The decision is also instructive to manufacturers in that clear and adequate safety warnings should accompany the product when the product is equipped with removable safety devices. A product will likely not be found defective or unusually dangerous by a judge or jury in cases where it is safe for use when its warnings are properly followed.

* Jim is a shareholder in our Philadelphia, PA office. He can be reached at (215) 575-2801 or by e-mail at jjohnson@mdwcg.com.