Kornfeind v. New Werner Holding Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2398 EDA 2019,2398 EDA 2019
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Parties: William KORNFEIND, Appellee v. NEW WERNER HOLDING CO., INC. & The Home Depot, Inc., Appellants

241 A.3d 1212

William KORNFEIND, Appellee

v.NEW WERNER HOLDING CO., INC. & The Home Depot, Inc., Appellants

No. 2398 EDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed November 9, 2020

Carol Ann VanderWoude, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Patrick Daniel MacAvoy, Media, for appellee.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J. AND STRASSBURGER, J.^*

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

New Werner Holding Co., Inc. (New Werner) and The Home Depot, Inc. (Home Depot) (collectively, Defendants) appeal by permission pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b) and Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b) from the interlocutory orders entered April 18, 2019, which denied Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in the product liability and negligence case filed against them by William Kornfeind. We reverse the order denying summary judgment to Home Depot and affirm the order denying summary judgment to New Werner.

Background

Kornfeind is a lifelong resident of Illinois. On September 6, 2013, Kornfeind was standing on a 28-foot fiberglass extension ladder performing maintenance on his home in Illinois. According to Kornfeind, the ladder slid or telescoped downward, causing him to fall and sustain severe injuries that rendered him a quadriplegic.

The ladder was manufactured in Illinois in 1995 by Werner Co. f/k/a R.D. Werner Co., n/k/a Old Ladder Co. (Old Ladder Co.). Old Ladder Co. filed for bankruptcy in 2006, and in 2007, an investor group New Werner Holding Co., Inc. (New Werner) purchased certain assets of and assumed certain liabilities from Old Ladder Co. New Werner is a Delaware corporation with corporate headquarters in Greenville, Pennsylvania.¹ Although Kornfeind admits he is not positive as to the retailer, Kornfeind believes he purchased the ladder from Home Depot, Inc. (Home Depot) in the late 1990s. The parties do not agree where the ladder was designed, with Kornfeind pointing to evidence that the ladder was designed in Pennsylvania and New Werner insisting it was designed in Illinois.

Kornfeind commenced the instant matter in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas via a writ of summons on September 3, 2015. Initially, the case was placed in deferred status due to Old Ladder Co.’s bankruptcy. In 2016, a federal bankruptcy court granted Kornfeind relief from the automatic stay, and in 2017, the instant litigation resumed following the trial court's order returning the case to active status. Kornfeind filed a complaint on May 26, 2017, which he later amended on July 19, 2017. The amended complaint alleged strict product liability and negligence claims against New Werner and Home Depot related to the design, manufacture, and sale of the ladder.² Following discovery, Defendants each filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions by orders entered April 18, 2019.

Defendants moved to certify the denial orders as interlocutory orders immediately appealable by permission pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b), but the trial court denied the motions. Defendants sought recourse in this Court by filing a joint petition for review pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b). On August 23, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ joint petition for review and permitted Defendants’ appeal to proceed.³

Standard of Review

We consider Defendants’ issues on appeal regarding the denial of summary judgment mindful of the following.

Our standard of review with respect to a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary judgment is well-settled:

A reviewing court may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plenary.

In evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof of an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which it bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Lastly, we will view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.

Oberdick v. TrizecHahn Gateway, LLC , 160 A.3d 215, 219 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing

Thompson v. Ginkel , 95 A.3d 900, 904 (Pa. Super. 2014) ).

Claims Against Home Depot

We begin with addressing the claims against Home Depot to facilitate ease of disposition. Home Depot argues that the trial court erred in denying Home Depot's motion for summary judgment because its only potential relationship to the matter is a possible sale of the alleged defective ladder. It contends Kornfeind did not set forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he bought the ladder from Home Depot, citing Kornfeind's statement that he "wasn't sure" where he bought it, and that it could have been one of three retailers, but he was "almost positive" it was Home Depot. Defendants’ Brief at 54 (citing Kornfeind Deposition, 5/8/2018, at 135-36.). Home Depot argues that the trial court has a duty to prevent the jury from deciding a question based upon a guess or conjecture. Id. at 55.

As this Court has explained, notwithstanding the need to view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,

[a] plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment when mere speculation would be required for the jury to find in plaintiff's favor. Juliano v. Johns–Manville Corp. , [416 Pa.Super. 321, 611 A.2d 238, 239 (Pa. Super. 1992) ] (stating that "[i]n the absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating that plaintiff worked with or near the asbestos materials of a particular defendant, a jury cannot find, except by speculation, that it was a defendant's product which caused plaintiff's injury. Speculation, however, is an inadequate basis for recovery."). A jury is not permitted to find that it was a defendant's product that caused the plaintiff's injury based solely upon speculation and conjecture; "there must be evidence upon which logically its conclusion must be based." Farnese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority , [338 Pa.Super. 130, 487 A.2d 887, 890 (Pa. Super. 1985) ]. "In fact, the trial court has a duty to prevent questions from going to the jury which would require it to reach a verdict based on conjecture, surmise, guess or speculation." Id. at 890. Additionally, a party is not entitled to an inference of fact that amounts merely to a guess or conjecture. Flaherty v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. , [426 Pa. 83, 231 A.2d 179, 180 (Pa. 1967) ].

Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc. , 104 A.3d 556, 568 (Pa. Super. 2014).

The trial court did not address directly the issue of whether Kornfeind established claims against Home Depot based upon its sale of the ladder, although it referred to Home Depot as the seller of the ladder in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/5/2019, at 2. In support of his claims on appeal, Kornfeind points to his testimony that he "remember[s] buying ladders at Home Depot that were Werner ladders," Home Depot is his "choice a hundred percent for buying things," and he is "almost positive" he bought the ladder at Home Depot. Kornfeind's Brief at 79-80 (citing Kornfeind Deposition, 5/8/2018, at 135-37, 141-42).

Our review of Kornfeind's deposition reveals the following testimony. Kornfeind admitted that when he filed the lawsuit, he "wasn't sure where [he] bought the ladder." Kornfeind Deposition, 5/8/2018, at 135. At the time of his deposition, Kornfeind was "almost positive" he bought the ladder at "a Home Depot" but admitted he was not "certain." Id. Kornfeind also testified that Menards and Sears sold ladders in his town, a fact of which he was aware because he "spen[t] a lot of time in hardware stores." Id. at 141-45. Although he did not recall buying a ladder at Sears "because their prices are higher," Kornfeind acknowledged that "probably" bought a ladder at Menards at some point in his life. Id.

Kornfeind testified that he had bought only one extension ladder in his life. Id. He remembers buying "ladders at Home Depot that were Werner." Id. When asked if he was "aware of any facts ... to support the claim that ... [he] bought [the extension ladder] from Home Depot," Kornfeind responded,

[t]he way I have always said it was Home Depot is my choice a hundred percent for buying things, but I don't have any facts or proof. I don't know if I used the word facts but I don't have any proof that I bought it at a Home Depot.

Id. Specifically, Kornfeind did not have a sales receipt, a memory of an associated purchase, or any other corroborating fact to prove that he purchased the ladder at Home Depot. Id.

In short, Kornfeind offers no evidence to prove that he purchased the ladder at issue at Home Depot except his own testimony, but even when viewed in the light most favorable to him, his testimony is equivocal and uncertain. To find it was a ladder sold by Home Depot that caused Kornfeind's injuries would require the jury to use "conjecture, surmise, guess or speculation." Krauss , 104 A.3d at 568. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying Home Depot's motion for summary judgment.

Application of Illinois's Statute of Repose Through Pennsylvania's Borrowing Statute to the Strict Liability Claim Against New Werner

Having resolved the claims against Home Depot, we now proceed to address the issues presented by New Werner. Its first issue concerns Pennsylvania's borrowing statute and the Illinois Statute of Repose. Illinois has a statute of repose regarding product liability, but Pennsylvania does not have an analogous statute. The...