permitting plaintiff to amend complaint to state claim under strict products liability theory for injuries suffered when he entered room in which exploding beer keg had been placed, even though plaintiff neither purchased nor used the keg
How later courts described this case
- permitting plaintiff to amend complaint to state claim under strict products liability theory for injuries suffered when he entered room in which exploding beer keg had been placed, even though plaintiff neither purchased nor used the keg
- Supreme Court created theory of liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, doing so after demurrer was sustained at the trial, apparently sua sponte, upon a legal theory not truly pled in the trial court, nor, apparently, then argued to the Supreme Court
- "To recover under § 402A, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the product was defective; (2) that the defect was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and (3
- an actor can only be subject to strict liability for selling a defective product if he is a "seller ... engaged in the business of selling such a product"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Forry v. Gulf Oil Corp., 428 Pa. 334 (1968)
The court below apparently believed Webb was inapplicable and did not mention either Webb or §402 A in its opinion.
The opinion
*428 Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I am in complete accord with the court’s action in adopting, as the law of Pennsylvania in tort actions involving products liability, §402A of the new Restatement of Torts. However, I would specifically restrict its application to those instances wherein physical harm to a user, or ultimate consumer, or to such individual’s property is concerned. In cases involving “economic loss”, I believe the warranty provisions of the sales law, as set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code, present more appropriate standards. Further, in this class of cases wherein §402A is applied, I would specifically rule that contributory negligence or assumption of risk may be a complete defense to the action.