EJ Stewart, Inc. v. Aitken Products, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-3292,81-4328 and 81-4742.
• Citation: 607 F. Supp. 883
• Parties: E.J. STEWART, INC. v. AITKEN PRODUCTS, INC. and Electro-Therm, Inc. Marra DAVIS v. AITKEN PRODUCTS, INC. and Electro-Therm, Inc. VICTOR C. SMITH, INC. and Sporkin Associates, Inc. v. AITKEN PRODUCTS, INC. and Electro-Therm, Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

607 F. Supp. 883

E.J. STEWART, INC. v. AITKEN PRODUCTS, INC. and Electro-Therm, Inc.

Marra DAVIS v. AITKEN PRODUCTS, INC. and Electro-Therm, Inc.

VICTOR C. SMITH, INC. and Sporkin Associates, Inc. v. AITKEN PRODUCTS, INC. and Electro-Therm, Inc.

Civ. A. Nos. 81-3292, 81-4328 and 81-4742.

United States District Court, E.D.Pa.

January 22, 1985.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

A. Richard Bailey, Jeanne Wrobleski, Cozen, Begier & O'Connor, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in No. 81-3292.

L. Carter Anderson, Kevin F. Berry, Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants in all cases.

Peter Parashes, White & Williams, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in No. 81-4328.

James F. Proud, Media, Pa., for plaintiff in No. 81-4742.

OPINION AND ORDER

VanARTSDALEN, District Judge.

1. BACKGROUND

These consolidated civil actions had their genesis in a fire at E.J. Stewart, Inc.'s (E.J. Stewart) leased premises on January 31, 1980. The fire apparently started in an area near a suspended electric radiant heater in E.J. Stewart's warehouse. E.J. Stewart, a video production company, brought suit in Civil Action 81-3292 against the manufacturers of the heating unit, Aitken Products, Inc. (Aitken) and the component heating element (or calrod), Electro-Therm, Inc. (Electro-Therm), to recover alleged property damage and business interruption losses caused by the fire. E.J. Stewart alleged that the radiant heating element, known as a Thermalink, arced or failed in a catastrophic manner, causing the fire.

The plaintiffs in Civil Actions 81-4328 and 81-4742, Marra Davis, Victor C. Smith, Inc. and Sporkin Associates, Inc., were the owner and two other tenants of the building, respectively. Pursuant to stipulation entered into by the parties, the plaintiffs in Civil Actions 81-4328 and 81-4742 agreed to be bound by a decision as to liability in Civil Action 81-3292. Therefore, Civil Action 81-3292, with E.J. Stewart as plaintiff, proceeded to trial alone.

Following a jury trial that commenced on February 28, 1984 and concluded on March 8, 1984, the jury returned answers to written interrogatories in favor of defendants as follows:

                                       SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY
                           1. Do you find that the electric heater was the cause of
                              the fire?                                                       YES   X  NO ____
                           2. Do you find that the electric heater, at the time it was
                              manufactured and sold by Aitken Products, Inc., was
                              defective?                                                      YES   X  NO ____
                              (a) If 2 above is answered YES, was such defect a
                                  design defect?                                              YES ____ NO X
                                  (1) If 2(a) is answered YES, was such a design
                                      defect a legal cause of the fire (i.e., a substantial
                                      factor in bringing about the fire)?                      YES ____ NO ____
                              (b) If 2 is answered YES, was such defect a failure to
                                  provide adequate warnings?                                  YES   X  NO ____
                                  (1) If 2(b) is answered YES, was such failure to
                                      provide adequate warnings a legal cause of the
                                      fire (i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about
                                      the fire)?                                              YES ____ NO   X
                           3. Do you find that the electric heating element (calrod)
                              component part of the electric heater, at the time it
                              was manufactured and sold by Electro Therm, Inc
                              was defective?                                                  YES   X  NO ____
                              (a) If 3 is answered YES, was such defect a design
                                  defect?                                                     YES ____ NO   X
                                  (1) If 3(a) is answered YES, was such a design
                                      defect a legal cause of the fire (i.e., a substantial
                                      factor in bringing about the fire)?                     YES ____ NO ____
                              (b) If 3 is answered YES, was such a defect a failure
                                  to provide adequate warnings                                YES   X  NO ____
                                  (1) If 3(b) is answered YES, was such failure to
                                      provide adequate warnings a legal cause of the
                                      fire (i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about
                                      the fire)?                                              YES ____ NO  X
                           4. Do you find that Aitken Products, Inc., was negligent
                              which negligence was a legal cause of the fire (i.e., a
                              substantial factor in bringing about the fire)?                 YES   X  NO ____
                

                           5. Do you find that Electro Therm, Inc. was negligent
                              which negligence was a legal cause of the fire (i.e., a
                              substantial factor in bringing about the fire)?                 YES   X  NO ____
                           6. Do you find that E.J. Stewart, Inc., was contributorily
                              negligent, which negligence contributed causally to
                              bringing about the fire?                                        YES   X  NO ____
                           7. What percentage of the total causal negligence of all
                              parties found causally negligent do you find as to each
                              party found causally negligent
                              (a) Aitken Products, Inc.
                                  (Answer only if 4 is answered YES)       20%
                              (b) Electro Therm, Inc.
                                  (Answer only if 5 is answered YES)       5%
                              (c) E.J. Stewart, Inc.
                                  (Answer only if 6 is answered YES)       75%
                                                      TOTAL                100%
                           NOTE: The total of 7(a), (b) and (c) must equal 100%.
                           8. Do you find that E.J. Stewart, Inc., with full knowledge
                              of the risk involved, voluntarily assumed the risk of
                              harm?                                                     YES ____ NO   X
                           9. If you have answered YES to 3(a)(1), 3(b)(1) and/or 5,
                              do you find that there was some act or failure to act on
                              the part of Aitken Products, Inc., that constituted an
                              intervening, superseding cause, relieving Electro
                              Therm, Inc. from liability?                               YES ____ NO  X
                                                             /s/                  
                                                                     Foreman/Forelady
                

Plaintiff timely filed an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial on March 19, 1984. Plaintiff properly reserved the right to supplement its arguments upon receipt of the trial transcript. Due to the nature of certain of plaintiff's assignments of error, all parties concerned recognized the necessity of the trial transcript to disposition of plaintiff's motion. In order to avoid duplicative work, I informed defendants that their responses to plaintiff's motion need not be filed until after plaintiff supplemented its motion, following receipt of the trial transcript.¹

Shortly after plaintiff ordered the trial transcript, the court reporter who had recorded the trial testimony was hospitalized with a serious ailment. Fortunately, the reporter recovered and recently completed transcribing the notes of testimony. Although I could have ruled on plaintiff's motion without the trial transcript, all parties and the court agreed to wait for the notes of testimony. Plaintiff's motion is now ripe for disposition.

2. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V.

The standard for granting a motion for a judgment n.o.v. is the same as that for a directed verdict. Neville Chemical Company v. Union Carbide Corp., 422 F.2d 1205, 1210 n. 5 (3d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 826, 91 S.Ct. 51, 27 L.Ed.2d 55 (1970). The jury's verdict will be set aside only if manifest injustice will result if such verdict is allowed to stand. To grant such a motion the court must find as a matter of law that there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment. Woodward & Dickerson, Inc. v. Yoo Hoo Beverage Co., 502 F.Supp. 395, 397 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff'd mem., 661 F.2d 916 (3d Cir.1981). In ruling on plaintiff's motion I must view the evidence, and all inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to defendants, the verdict winners. Thomas v. E.J. Korvette Inc., 476 F.2d 471 (3d Cir.1973).

Plaintiff has advanced several contentions in support of its motion for judgment n.o.v. I will deal with each in turn.

Plaintiff's first contention is that, based upon the jury's answers to the special interrogatories, plaintiff is entitled to judgment in its favor. Plaintiff argues that: "To prevail on its 402A claim, Stewart needed only to prove that the heater and calrod were defective and they caused the fire." Plaintiff's Memorandum at 9 (citations omitted). Plaintiff contends that because "the jury found that the heater was the cause of the fire and that the heater and the calrod were defective" that "judgment should have been entered in favor of Stewart." Id. Plaintiff's statement as to what it needed to prove in order to prevail under section 402A is correct, as far as it goes. Plaintiff, however, does not go far enough.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has opined that:

The progress of the law in extending liability without fault to product suppliers should not be in disregard of fundamentals pertaining to the tort law of causation. In negligence cases there has been the modern admixture of foreseeability and causation to determine the existence of liability. If in a negligence case foreseeability and cause are to be examined to determine the scope of liability, it would seem that the same should be true in a case of unintentional conduct involving liability without fault.

...