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
Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Summary Judgment on Failure-To-Warn Claim, Offers Helpful Illustration of “Deeding Presumption.”
November 3, 2026
This products liability case involved an allegedly defective walk-behind lawnmower that had been manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff had purchased the lawnmower as a floor model, which did not come with an owner’s manual. The lawnmower did feature a prominent on-product label, though, which warned users about mowing on sloped areas. The plaintiff failed to heed the warning, slipped while mowing a sloped portion of his backyard, and suffered a mangled left foot. Plaintiff advanced claims of failure-to-warn and design defect. The former claim was dismissed at summary judgment; the latter returned a defense verdict at trial. On appeal, the Superior Court upheld the result, but spent most of its opinion discussing the warnings claim. In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff enjoys the benefit of a “heeding presumption” – a rebuttable presumption that, if an adequate warning has been provided, the plaintiff would have read and heeded it. (Some cases have held that the heeding presumption only applies in workplace asbestos cases. McDonnell did not mention or apply that limitation.) The heeding presumption serves to help establish the “causation” element of a failure-to-warn claim, i.e. that a different warning would have prevented the incident. The heeding presumption is rebuttable, though, upon evidence to the contrary. In McDonnell, the defendants pointed to the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony that he did not feel the need to track down a copy of the owner’s manual, or even spend time reading the on-product label. That was sufficient, the Superior Court held, to rebut the heeding presumption, and require Plaintiff to present affirmative evidence that a different warning would have made a difference. Plaintiff did not do so, and the Court found there was no basis to conclude that Plaintiff would have treated an alternative warning any differently than the current warnings he had ignored. Because Plaintiff could not establish the causation element of his failure-to-warn claim, the Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment on that issue. Helpfully, the Court also re-affirmed the corollary heeding presumption in favor of product sellers: “Where the given warnings are sufficient to make a product safe for its intended use, a plaintiff cannot recover for injuries sustained as a result of his failure to heed them, for manufacturers and sellers are also entitled to a presumption that consumers will heed it.” Ultimately, McDonnell is a good illustration of the shifting burdens that apply in a failure-to-warn claim.
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.
