Mackowick v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.

• Citation: 525 Pa. 52,575 A.2d 100
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,457 William W. MACKOWICK, Jr. and Margaret Mackowick, his wife, Appellants, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 22 May 1990
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 100

575 A.2d 100

525 Pa. 52, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,457

William W. MACKOWICK, Jr. and Margaret Mackowick, his wife, Appellants, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 29, 1989.

Decided May 22, 1990.

Maureen Dunn Harvey, Wallace, Chapas & Associates, Poughkeepsie, for appellants.

Kenneth S. Mroz, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., Poughkeepsie, for amicus curiae, Pa. Defense Institute.

Richard H. Galloway, Galloway, DeBernardo, Antoniono & McCabe P.C., Greensburg, for Pa. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

Frederick N. Egler, Egler, Anstandig & Garrett, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

OPINION

NIX, Chief Justice.

The appellant here requests that this Court reverse the decision of the Superior Court, 373 Pa.Super. 434, 541 A.2d 749, which affirmed the judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. For the following reasons we conclude that as a matter of law appellant failed to state a cause of action in strict liability based upon inadequate warning, and the judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed.

In December, 1982, the appellant, William Mackowick, was installing an electrical capacitor in the switchgear room at Western Pennsylvania Hospital. The room had high voltage warnings on its door and was unlocked for authorized persons only. During the installation, one of the appellant's co-workers removed the cover from the operating Westinghouse capacitor. On the lid was a warning to users which stated:

THIS CAPACITOR CONTAINS BUILT-IN DISCHARGE RESISTORS. CAUTION! WAIT FIVE MINUTES AFTER DISCONNECTING. THEN SHORT CIRCUIT THE TERMINALS AND GROUND THE CAPACITOR BEFORE HANDLING.

The appellant had similarly removed the lid to the Westinghouse capacitor several weeks prior to the accident and was aware of the warning written on the cover. He began to warn his co-worker of the danger of the live, uninsulated fuses inside the capacitor. As appellant pointed a screwdriver into the live capacitor, the electricity from the capacitor explosively flashed or "arced", and he was severely burned.

Appellant filed suit against Westinghouse, as the manufacturer of the capacitor, on a products liability theory alleging that Westinghouse provided inadequate warnings of the dangers of electrical "arcing" inherent in the unit. Westinghouse claimed the plaintiff assumed the risk of pointing a screwdriver near uninsulated fuses because, as an experienced electrician of 30 years, he was aware of the dangers of "arcing" regardless of the adequacy of the warning. After a four-day trial, the jury found in favor of Westinghouse.

Appellant appealed the judgment claiming the trial judge instructed the jury incorrectly as to this Commonwealth's law of assumption of risk. A panel of the Superior Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for new trial. Reargument was granted before the Superior Court en banc and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Appellant complains that the charge given to the jury misstated the law of assumption of risk, as it has been applied in this Commonwealth. The specific language of the trial judge concerning assumption of risk stated:

For you to find that a Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injury, you must find that the Plaintiff was aware of the danger presented by Defendant's product and ... voluntarily proceeded to encounter the danger. The Plaintiff must have realized the danger, but not necessarily the specific defect itself, just the danger.

(N.T. 359-350)

Appellant asserts the trial judge's charge that it was unnecessary for a plaintiff to know of the specific defect was contrary to existing law. He relies on the plurality opinion of this Court in Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corporation, 462 Pa. 83, 337 A.2d 893 (1975), ¹ for the proposition that a plaintiff must have known of the specific defect to assume the risk. In Berkebile, this Court was faced with several alleged defects of a commercial helicopter, including a failure to provide adequate warnings, and the defense of assumption of risk. The Court stated, with regards to assumption of risk:

A plaintiff cannot be precluded from recovery in a strict liability case because of his own negligence. He is precluded from recovery only if he knows of the specific defect eventually causing his injury and voluntarily proceeds to use the product with knowledge of the danger caused by the defect. (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 100, 337 A.2d at 901.

While this argument may be facially appealing, the fundamental error involved in this case relates to the trial judge's determination to allow the issue of whether or not the product was defective to go to the jury. Mr. Mackowick did not seek recovery in strict liability on a mechanical defect. He alleged the warnings provided by Westinghouse were inadequate to make this inherently dangerous product safe for use by the ultimate consumer. It is well settled a dangerous product can be considered "defective" for strict liability purposes if it is distributed without sufficient warnings to notify the ultimate user of the dangers inherent in the product. Sherk v. Daisy-Heddon, Etc., 498 Pa. 594, 450 A.2d 615 (1982); Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978); Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., supra; Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co., 457 Pa. 24, 319 A.2d 903 (1974); Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (1966); see also, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment h. Such warnings must be directed to the understanding of the intended user. See Sherk, supra; Berkebile, supra; Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263, 282 A.2d 206 (1971); see also, Brown v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 741 F.2d 656 (3rd Cir.1984); Jackson v. Coast Paint and Lacquer Co., 499 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.1974). The duty to adequately warn does not require the manufacturer to educate a neophyte in the principles of the product. A warning of inherent dangers is sufficient if it adequately notifies the intended user of the unobvious dangers inherent in the product.

The determinations of whether a warning is adequate and whether a product is "defective" due to inadequate warnings are questions of law to be answered by the trial judge. As this Court stated in Azzarello, supra:

These are questions of law and their resolution depends upon social policy. Restated, the phrases "defective condition" and "unreasonably dangerous" as used in the Restatement formulation are terms of art involved when strict liability is appropriate. It is a judicial function to decide whether, under the plaintiff's averment of the facts, recovery would be justified; and only after this judicial determination is made is the cause submitted to the jury to determine whether the facts of the case support the averments of complaint.

Id., 480 Pa. at 558, 391 A.2d at 1026.

Other jurisdictions have similarly held that the determinations of whether a cause of action under strict liability is supported by sufficient evidence and whether the manufacturer should be burdened with the duty to warn of specific dangers are questions of law to be answered by the courts. See Byrne v. SCM Corp., 182 Ill.App.3d 523, 131 Ill.Dec. 421, 538 N.E.2d 796 (1989); Huber v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 430 N.W.2d 465 (Minn.1988); Butz v. Werner, 438 N.W.2d 509 (N.D.1989); Ewen v. McLean Trucking Co., 70 Or.App. 595, 689 P.2d 1309 (1984); Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 732 S.W.2d 62 (Tex.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1987); and O'Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P.2d 1278 (Wyo.1985).

In a factually similar case a Michigan appellate court held that the question of whether a manufacturer must warn a professional of the dangers expected to be known by the professional was a question of law to be decided by the court and not by the jury. In Ross v. Jaybird Automation, Inc., 172 Mich.App. 603, 432 N.W.2d 374 (1988), citing, Antcliff v. State Employees Credit Union, 414 Mich. 624, 327 N.W.2d 814 (1982), the court stated:

Whether a manufacturer owes a duty to warn or to instruct is a question of law for the court to decide.... A seller or manufacturer should be able to presume mastery of basic operations by experts or skilled professionals in an industry, and should not owe a duty to warn or instruct such persons on how to perform basic operations in their industry. (Citation omitted.)

Id., 172 Mich.App. at 607, 432 N.W.2d at 377.

Here, appellant specifically contends an adequate warning for this capacitor would necessarily include language about the possibility of arcing without the user actually touching the live fuses. However, arcing itself is not the danger requiring a warning in this instance. The danger to be warned against is the live, exposed electricity. Arcing is a principle of electricity and a propensity of exposed high voltage electrical power. Such principles are expected to be known by a skilled electrician. This product was intended to be used only by qualified electricians who would be aware of the dangers of arcing in such equipment. ²

The warning provided on the lid of the capacitor clearly instructed the user to ground the electricity before handling and thereby relieve any danger of electrocution from the uninsulated, live electrical source. The warning addressed the danger inherent in the product and was sufficient for the intended user. Here, an electrician with 30 years of experience and training was more than adequately alerted to the danger. With a sufficient warning present, this product should not have been considered "defective" and the cause of action in strict liability should have failed as a matter of law.

As the following excerpts from side bar conversations between the trial judge and both counsel reflect, the trial judge wrestled with his uncertainty as to the resolution of this issue.

Mr. Egler (defense counsel): The plaintiff was aware of the danger of the voltage. He...