Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that compliance with industry standards is not prima facie evidence that a product’s design is effective and non-defective.

January 1, 2019
Dunlap v. Fed. Signal Corp., 194 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2018)

The plaintiffs in this mass tort product liability action were firefighters who allegedly suffered permanent hearing loss due to exposure to a siren manufactured by the defendant. Proceeding under a risk-utility theory of product liability, the plaintiffs offered expert testimony concerning an alternative design that would reduce the noise level in the cab of a fire truck. However, their expert did not offer any opinion as to whether the alternative design would offer the same level of protection to motorists and pedestrians. In their unsuccessful attempt to defeat summary judgment, the plaintiffs argued that such testimony was unnecessary because the alternative design complied with industry standards. On appeal, a divided panel of the Superior Court upheld the defendant’s dismissal. While the dissenting judge argued the majority had erred in adopting a bright line rule barring evidence of the product’s compliance with industry standards, the majority countered it had not been presented with that particular issue on appeal. Rather, the majority’s decision was limited to a finding that compliance with industry standards was not sufficient to prove the effectiveness of a product’s alternative design. Thus, while language from this decision may provide some insight as to the current leanings of the Superior Court on this issue, it does not provide a definitive answer as to the admissibility of industry standard evidence in the post-Tincher landscape. 


Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2019

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."