holding that, because the plaintiffs allegation was that the rotor system was defective because it did not allow enough time for the average pilot to go into autorotation, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs failure to go into autorotation within the necessary time constituted an “abnormal use” of the system
How later courts described this case
- holding that, because the plaintiffs allegation was that the rotor system was defective because it did not allow enough time for the average pilot to go into autorotation, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs failure to go into autorotation within the necessary time constituted an “abnormal use” of the system
- holding that, for policy reasons, a manufacturer should be the guarantor of its products' safety, reasoning that the distinction between strict liability and negligence is that the exercise of due care in strict liability cases is absolutely irrelevant
- holding trial court erred in instructing on manufacturer's foreseeability, as "[t]o require foreseeability is to require the manufacturer to use due care in preparing his product. In strict liability, the manufacturer is liable even if he has exercised all due care."
- plaintiff cannot be precluded from recovery in a strict liability case due to his own negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228 (2012)
337 A.2d 893, 898 (Pa. 1975), overruled on other grounds by Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 55 A.3d 1088
Distinguished
Distinguished by Mazur v. Merck & Co., 964 F.2d 1348 (1992)
Berkebile is first, and foremost, a section 402A case, and is inapposite here.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
The trial court instructed the jury that if the pilot of the helicopter failed to place the helicopter in autorotation in time to prevent a crash, he used the helicopter in an abnormal manner and his estate would be barred from recovery. Because this instruction improperly withdrew from the jury’s consideration one of appellant’s theories of recovery — that the helicopter was defectively designed so as to make it impossible for the pilot to place the helicopter in autorotation — I concur in the majority’s decision affirming the Superior Court’s grant of a new trial.