Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc.

Citation55 A.3d 1088
PartiesDuane REOTT and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife v. ASIA TREND, INC., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide. Appeal of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide. Duane Reott and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife v. Asia Trend, Inc., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide. Appeal of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide. Duane Reott and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife v. Asia Trend, Inc., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide. Appeal of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide. Duane Reott and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife v. Asia Trend, Inc., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide. Appeal Of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide.
Decision Date26 November 2012
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

55 A.3d 1088

Duane REOTT and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife
v.
ASIA TREND, INC., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide.

Appeal of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide.

Duane Reott and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife
v.
Asia Trend, Inc., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide.

Appeal of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide.

Duane Reott and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife
v.
Asia Trend, Inc., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide.

Appeal of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide.

Duane Reott and Patty Reott, Husband and Wife
v.
Asia Trend, Inc., Clam Corporation (as Successor–In–Interest to USL Outdoor Products, Inc.), USL Outdoor Products, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide.

Appeal Of Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC and The Sportsman's Guide.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 19, 2011.
Decided Nov. 26, 2012.


[55 A.3d 1090]


Michael K. English, Thomas W. King III, Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham L.L.P., Butler, Philip J. Mohr, Womble Carlyle, for Remington Arms Company Inc. and RA Brands, LLC.

Kate J. Fagan, Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, L.L.C., Pittsburgh, for The Sportsman's Guide.


John Wright Zotter, Zimmer Kunz, P.L.L.C., Pittsburgh, for Asia Trend Inc.

David Alan Neely, Pittsburgh, for Duane Reott and Patty Reott.

Arthur L. Bugay, Galfand Berger, L.L.P., Philadelphia, for Appellee Amicus Curiae, Pennsylvania Association for Justice.

BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.

OPINION

Justice BAER.

We granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine, as a matter of first impression for this Court, whether a defendant in a products liability action must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured party's alleged “highly reckless conduct” was the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff's injuries. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Superior Court that, in order to avoid liability, a defendant raising a claim of highly reckless conduct must indeed plead and prove such claim as an affirmative defense. Moreover, this evidence must further establish that the highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the injuries sustained. We therefore affirm the order of the Superior Court.

In January of 2003, Douglas Reott, brother of the Plaintiff–Appellee, Duane Reott,1 ordered two identical Remington-branded tree stands from The Sportsman's Guide, a mail-order and online catalog of outdoors products. Douglas gave the tree stands to Appellee, who in turn paid Douglas for them. For approximately the next two years, Appellee used one of the tree stands on multiple occasions, while leaving the second sealed in the box. On September 25, 2005, Appellee took the second, previously unused tree stand to his other brother Daniel's house, intending to install the second stand in a tree in the vicinity.

Appellee and his brother Daniel assembled the tree stand at Daniel's house, selected a suitable tree, and Appellee utilized a “ladder stick” to climb twenty to twenty-five feet to install the stand in the tree. Upon placing the stand in the tree, Appellee cinched the locking strap around the tree's trunk to secure the stand. Appellee then climbed onto the platform of the tree

[55 A.3d 1091]

stand and, while bear hugging the tree, raised himself on his toes and came down on the platform. According to Appellee, this self-taught maneuver, known as “setting the stand,” is used to secure the stand firmly in the tree by taking any slack out of the locking strap. Appellee had performed this maneuver, in his estimation, hundreds of times on other stands before September 25, 2005. This time, however, when Appellee came down onto the stand's platform, the locking strap broke, and Appellee fell to the ground. Daniel assisted his brother back to his residence. He subsequently sought medical attention, which revealed that the fall had resulted in a crushed vertebra and fractured wrist. When Appellee and his brother Daniel examined the tree stand, they discovered that the locking strap had been only glued, rather than like a seatbelt, which is glued and stitched.

Appellee, together with his wife, sued four entities, Asia Trend, Inc., Remington Arms Company, Inc., RA Brands, LLC, and The Sportsman's Guide (collectively, Appellants), in strict products liability pursuant to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, alleging that Appellee's injuries were caused by a manufacturing defect in the tree stand, namely, that the locking strap was defectively manufactured in that it was held together only with glue, rather than with glue and stitching. All Appellants filed answers denying the allegations, as well as new matters, which placed responsibility for the incident on Appellee.2

Upon the conclusion of the introduction of evidence at trial, Appellee moved for a directed verdict, arguing to the trial judge that uncontroverted evidence existed that the tree stand was defective, and that the defect caused Appellee's injuries. See Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (1966); Hadar v. Avco Corp., 886 A.2d 225 (Pa.Super.2005) (each providing that a plaintiff in a Section 402A action must prove two things: (1) that the product was defective; and (2) that the defect in the product was a substantial factor in causing the injuries sustained). The trial court agreed with Appellee that the product was defective, and granted a partial directed verdict on that sub-issue only. The court denied the motion for directed verdict regarding causation, and permitted that question to go to the jury.

Appellants presented evidence to the jury that Appellee's self-taught “setting the stand” maneuver constituted highly reckless conduct, which negated Appellee's contention that the defect in the locking strap caused his fall and resultant injuries. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellants. Appellee filed for posttrial relief seeking, inter alia, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), contending error in the trial court's denial of Appellee's motion for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the post-trial relief, finding that evidence concerning Appellee's highly reckless conduct raised a jury question concerning Appellee's proof of causation, which the jury,

[55 A.3d 1092]

as exhibited by the verdict, resolved against Appellee.

Appellee filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court, alleging that the trial court erred when it determined that a defendant may present evidence of highly reckless conduct merely to rebut evidence of causation, thus leaving the plaintiff with the sole burden of proof, consistent with the two-part inquiry of Webb and Hadar (that the tree stand was defective and that the defect was a substantial factor in Appellee's injuries). See Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830 (Pa.Super.2010).

The court began its analysis by noting that, while evidence of a plaintiff's conduct, especially contributory negligence, is generally not permitted in a Section 402A case, “[i]n certain limited circumstances, evidence of a plaintiff's conduct may be admissible, specifically where the defendant alleges that the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of the risk, product misuse, or highly reckless conduct is relevant to the issue of causation.” Id. at 836 (citing Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524, 540 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied,605 Pa. 686, 989 A.2d 917 (2010)). The panel then related that highly reckless conduct occurs when “the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of facts which created a high degree of risk of physical harm to himself and that he deliberately act[s], or fail[s] to act, in conscious disregard of that risk.” Id. (citing Charlton v. Toyota Indus. Equip., 714 A.2d 1043, 1047 (Pa.Super.1998)).

The panel then conducted a survey of Pennsylvania products liability law and determined that assumption of the risk, product misuse, and highly reckless conduct “are all affirmative defenses for which the defendant asserting them bears the burden of proof.” Id. at 837 (emphasis in original) (citing, e.g., Falyk v. Pa. R. Co., 256 Pa. 397, 100 A. 961, 963 (1917) (noting, in a pre-Section 402A case, that assumption of the risk generally is an affirmative defense); Gaudio, 976 A.2d at 541 (in a Section 402A case, highly reckless conduct claim requires a “defendant to prove that the use was so extraordinary and unforeseeable to constitute a superseding cause.”); Charlton, 714 A.2d at 1047 (in a Section 402A action defendant was required to show that plaintiff knew or should have known that his actions were highly reckless); Childers v. Power Line Equip. Rentals, Inc., 452 Pa.Super. 94, 681 A.2d 201, 208 (1996), appeal denied,547 Pa. 735, 690 A.2d 236 (1997) (in an action for products liability, product misuse and highly reckless conduct are affirmative defenses)).3 In accord with these cases, the court also held that a defendant had the burden of proving that a plaintiff's highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of his injuries.

Concluding that a two-part burden is placed on defendants alleging highly reckless conduct ( i.e., affirmative proof that the plaintiff acted in a highly reckless manner and that such conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the injuries), the panel proceeded to examine the evidence presented at trial. Regarding, first, Appellee's conduct, the panel concluded that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2014
    ...restricted to considering single use of multi-use product in design defect, threshold, risk-utility balancing); Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228, 55 A.3d 1088 (2012) (supplier asserting that injured plaintiff's “highly reckless conduct” is sole and superseding cause of injury must ple......
  • Conneen v. Amatek, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • February 28, 2017
    ...F.Supp.2d 358, 362–63 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (Robreno, J.) (application of state versus federal law); Sabella , 103 A.3d 83 (citing Reott , 618 Pa. 228, 55 A.3d at 1092 ) (under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden of proof)......
  • Rost v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • November 22, 2016
    ...a request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only when we find an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228, 55 A.3d 1088, 1093 (2012) ; Dooner v. DiDonato, 601 Pa. 209, 971 A.2d 1187, 1193 (2009). An award of judgment notwithstanding the verdict i......
  • Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • June 24, 2016
    ...to summary judgment. Assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense under the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc. , 618 Pa. 228, 55 A.3d 1088, 1095 (2012). It is only relevant " ‘where there would otherwise be a breach of some duty owed by the defendant to the plainti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT