Marshall Dennehey's litigation attorneys have been actively defending product liability claims for over 40 years. These attorneys provide considerable experience and knowledge on behalf of our product liability clients. In recognition of the group’s capabilities, the practice was ranked Band Two for Pennsylvania Product Liability Litigation in the 2026 and 2025 editions of Chambers USA.
Our product liability attorneys have defended cases alleging defects in manufacture, design, failure to warn and breach of warranty of every imaginable variety. Attorneys in this practice group have represented foreign and domestic manufacturers and act as national coordinating counsel and regional counsel in a number of state and federal courts. Our attorneys have served as advisors to companies offering new or improved products, addressing litigation consequences and advertising.
Members of this litigation group are familiar with product liability cases including:
- Pharmaceutical products
- Medical devices
- Agricultural products
- Electrical equipment
- Firearms
- Sporting goods
- Recreational products
- Home appliances
- Powered equipment
- Industrial machinery
- Watercraft
- Automobile parts
- Automobiles
- Railroad and aviation equipment
- Food products
The attorneys in this practice group are recognized leaders in this area of the law. Our attorneys frequently speak at national, regional and local seminars, and they are published in their field. Moreover, several attorneys have been elected as Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Their memberships include: Product Liability Advisory Council, Product Liability Committee of the Defense Research Institute, International Association of Defense Counsel, Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers of America.
Through an investment in state-of-the-art computerization and technology, members of this practice group maintain and share current information concerning expert witnesses, the law and the ever-changing landscape of statutory and regulatory requirements. These litigators remain vigilant for rapidly developing changes in the law, medico-legal literature, technology and the latest theories of liability advanced by experienced plaintiffs' attorneys.
Members of this practice group are often called upon to direct and participate in jury research and case evaluations using focus groups. State-of-the-art exhibits are often employed to educate and persuade jurors of the merits of the products they defend.
Attorneys in this practice group are litigators in the truest sense of the word. They have tried to verdict cases of every size and complexity. Yet, they keep a keen eye on the costs associated with this type of litigation. They are poised to work closely with our clients to develop innovative and practical approaches to keep costs and fees as low as possible.
Our firm has long prided itself in providing quality legal services at competitive rates. We can do this, particularly in product liability cases, because of the extensive experience of our attorneys, judicious staffing of cases and a case focus that never diverts from providing our clients with a practical, results-oriented defense.
We welcome the opportunity to work closely with you in defending your company and its products against product liability claims. We clearly understand and respond to the needs of our clients to protect the integrity and reputation of their products, as well as their proprietary interests.
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in a Premises and Product Liability Case
We won a motion for summary judgment in Schuylkill County, PA, in a premises liability and product liability case. We represented the manufacturer of a concrete railroad crossing that was installed at an intersection in 2005. In 2021, the plaintiff was riding his bike across the crossing when his bike tire allegedly became stuck in a gap in the concrete. There was ample evidence that the railroad was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the crossing while our client did nothing other than supply the prefabricated crossing. We argued the gap that developed in the crossing was not the responsibility of the crossing manufacturer and that the statute of repose barred the lawsuit. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer.
Successfully Defended Appeal Sustaining Objections of Improper Venue
We successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court decision sustaining preliminary objections on the grounds of improper venue. This case involved the death of a 19-year-old woman at a university who fell down an 11-story trash chute in an off-campus condominium building. In this mixed negligence and product liability case, we represented two of the multiple defendants, the condominium association and the building management company. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that venue was improper in Philadelphia County and ordered that the case be transferred to Centre County. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and the matter was briefed and argued in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court, in a precedential decision, affirmed the trial court’s decision and found that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the preliminary objections. In support of its decision, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff’s arguments were unsupported by Pennsylvania law. The Superior Court, in finding waiver of an issue, quoted directly from the brief prepared by Kim.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Superior Court Clarifies Crashworthiness Doctrine and Provides Key Jury‑Instruction Guidance
April 1, 2026
In the much-publicized Amagasu case, a jury returned a verdict of nearly a billion dollars to a plaintiff who was paralyzed in a rollover car accident. On appeal, the Superior Court vacated the award and remanded for a new trial stating that the trial court did not properly charge the jury on crashworthiness principles. Crashworthiness is a subset of products liability cases in which it is alleged that a vehicle possessed a defect that did not cause an accident, but did not offer sufficient protection to the vehicle’s occupant during the accident. Pennsylvania law recognizes that collisions and other accidents are part of the intended use of a motor vehicle, so manufacturers must design and manufacture a product that is “reasonably crashworthy.” For example, if a plaintiff is involved in a head-on collision and the air bags do not deploy, the lack of air bag deployment did not cause the collision, but possibly increased the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries – that failure to perform may give rise to a product defect claim. In Amagasu, the Superior Court re-affirmed the elements of a crashworthiness claim, which was first recognized in Pennsylvania in 1994, but has not frequently been analyzed since the landmark Tincher case re-defined the product liability cause of action. Amagasu explained that crashworthiness cases involved a “more rigorous” and a “heightened burden of proof” compared to ordinary products liability cases as a trade off for expanding the scope of liability to an alleged defect that did not cause the underlying accident. Specifically, in addition to proving a product defect, the plaintiff must prove that, at the time the vehicle was designed, a safer and more practical design existed. A plaintiff’s burden to prove causation is also heavier in a crashworthiness case, as he or she must distinguish between the “enhanced injury” caused by the defect, and the “non-compensable injuries” he or she would have sustained in the accident anyway. The Superior Court emphasized that these crashworthiness elements “impose a burden of proof far and above that of a typical” products liability case. Amagasu may have a greater impact than simply crashworthiness cases as the billion-dollar verdict was vacated because the trial court did not give proper jury instructions. The trial court had avoided giving instructions that were not included in the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions, which did not provide a specific instruction on crashworthiness. The Suggested Standard Jury Instructions are an excellent resource and guide, but they are not an exhaustive statement of every area of the law. If a legal issue is raised by the evidence, the jury must be given an appropriate instruction, even if one is not included in the SSJI.
Case Law Alerts
In One Fell Swoop, Federal Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Product Misuse Defense
January 1, 2026
Thomas Donnelly brought suit in Greene County, Pennsylvania, against Defendants, General Electric Company and Joenic Steel, LLC, claiming he was injured while participating in the lift of a specially fabricated expansion joint. The plaintiff’s claims sounded in negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty. General Electric properly removed the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction. Both defendants raised the affirmative defense of product misuse, pursuant to Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 55 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2012), which held that “a defendant in a Section 402A action must plead and prove, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff acted in a highly reckless manner, if such conduct is asserted.” However, the words used in each defendants’ responsive pleadings were significantly different. In particular, Joenic Steel pled that the “plaintiff may have failed to exercise that degree of care and caution requiring attempting to assist in lifting a section of the expansion joint, and as such, the plaintiff’s injuries and damages were due to the conduct and actions of the plaintiff,” and that the “plaintiff assumed a known risk of harm by engaging in the means, methods and manner by which the expansion joint was being erected, and as such, Joenic Steel, Inc. cannot be found liable to the plaintiff.” Conversely, General Electric pled, among other things, that the “plaintiff’s claims against defendant GE are barred to the extent plaintiff’s conduct was the sole cause of the alleged incident,” and that the allegedly defective condition of the product “may have been the result of misuse, abuse or neglect, or substantial alteration, modification and/or change in the product between the time it left the custody, possession and/or control of defendant GE.” Donnelly moved for summary judgment on both of the defendants’ product misuse defenses. Judge Horan granted the plaintiff’s motion as to Joenic Steel but denied the motion as to General Electric based on the language that each defendant used in pleading the defense. In particular, Judge Horan found that Joenic Steel’s pleading failed to plead either product misuse or highly reckless conduct as mandated under Reott, while General Electric’s pleading stated both terms “misuse” and “sole cause,” thereby properly preserving the defense. Accordingly, the court found that Joenic Steel waived its defense of product misuse, while General Electric was permitted to proceed on the theory. This case highlights that answers to complaints are neither boilerplate nor form documents, and that words matter. It is clear from Joenic Steel’s pleading that it intended to pursue a product misuse defense, but by failing to use the specific words required in Reott, the legitimate and dispositive defense was deemed waived. Pleading requirements, especially in federal court, cannot be taken lightly. Attorneys must take extra care to follow them at all times or risk waiving important defenses for their clients.
