Nathan v. Techtronic Industries North America, Inc.

Citations: 92 F. Supp. 3d 264; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18835; 2015 WL 679150Docket: Civil No. 3:12-CV-00679

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; February 16, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff William Nathan filed a products liability action against the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of a table saw after sustaining injuries while using the product. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 and is currently addressing the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is partially granted and partially denied. Nathan's complaint, initiated on April 11, 2012, includes state-law claims for products liability and breach of implied warranty. 

The undisputed facts indicate that Nathan purchased a Model TS2400-1 table saw in 2007, which weighed 122 pounds and had a retail price of $399. The saw was accompanied by an operator’s manual containing safety warnings and usage instructions, which Nathan acknowledged reading multiple times, thereby understanding the risks associated with the saw’s rotating blades. However, on June 27, 2011, Nathan was injured while attempting to make a cut without using the blade guard assembly, which he had removed to facilitate narrow cuts. Nathan did not contest any of the eleven factual assertions presented by the Defendants.

Defendants were aware for over ten years prior to Nathan’s injury that the design issues of table saw blade guards led users to frequently remove them, increasing the risk of blade contact. Nathan's injuries could have been prevented or reduced significantly if the saw had incorporated active mitigation technologies, such as flesh detection. In 1999, Dr. Stephen Gass developed flesh detection technology that detects human skin contact through changes in electrical capacitance, triggering a mechanism that stops the blade in approximately three milliseconds, resulting in minimal injury. Dr. Gass presented this technology to Ryobi and other manufacturers in 2000, but Ryobi only conducted limited research. In January 2002, Ryobi licensed Gass’s technology but later opted to join a joint venture with other manufacturers in May 2003, which led to the development of their own flesh detection prototype by 2005. Meanwhile, Dr. Gass established SawStop, LLC, which launched a table saw featuring his flesh detection technology in August 2004.

Disputed facts include issues regarding the "3-in-1" blade guard of the table saw. The Plaintiff claims the guard obstructs visibility, complicates small cuts, is not suitable for certain operations, and often becomes misaligned, leading users to frequently remove it. Once removed, the guard is difficult to replace due to its design. Defendants contest this by citing evidence that Nathan found it easy to handle the guard.

Additionally, there is disagreement over the feasibility of incorporating flesh detection technology in small table saws at the time Nathan's saw was made. The Plaintiff asserts it has been feasible since 2002 and could be integrated at a modest cost. Conversely, Defendants argue that such technology would require significant redesign, increasing the saw’s weight and price, and note that SawStop's current products are not comparable to small table saws. They estimate that a small saw with this technology would cost substantially more to manufacture and retail. The Plaintiff counters that SawStop’s lack of a small saw is due to business decisions rather than technological limitations.

Finally, there is a dispute regarding whether Nathan would have been injured had he used the blade guard during the accident. He believes his hand would have slid under it and contacted the blade, while Defendants argue that the accident could have been avoided if the guard had been in place.

The standard of review for summary adjudication allows the court to resolve claims without a genuine dispute of material fact, requiring the moving party to demonstrate the absence of such disputes, while the nonmoving party must provide specific facts to prove otherwise. Evidence is viewed in favor of the non-moving party.

Nathan asserts state-law claims for strict products liability (Counts I, II) and negligence (Counts V, VI), based on failure to warn and three design defect theories. Additionally, Nathan claims breach of implied warranty (Counts III, IV). The Defendants seek summary judgment on four grounds: (1) the absence of a reasonable alternative design for the alleged defects; (2) Nathan's misuse of the saw as the cause of the accident; (3) Nathan's inability to succeed on the failure to warn claim; and (4) the untimeliness of Nathan's breach of warranty claims. 

In strict products liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was defective, the defect caused the injury, and the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For negligence, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. The core issue in both theories is the product's defective condition. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has established a new standard for determining product defectiveness in strict liability cases, allowing proof through either a consumer expectations test or a risk-utility test. The determination of defectiveness is a factual question for the jury. Federal courts must apply state law as per the highest state court's rulings, even if those rulings change during the course of a case. The applicability of the new standard from the Tincher case to this matter is a key threshold question.

The Third Circuit has not yet ruled on the application of the Tincher decision retroactively. In prior cases, such as Baker v. Outboard Marine Corp., the court found no indication that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Azzarello decision should apply only prospectively. Therefore, it is necessary to assess how Pennsylvania courts would approach the retroactive application of Tincher. Generally, Pennsylvania law dictates that the law in effect at the time of an appellate decision is applied, with new legal principles typically applied retroactively unless stated otherwise. Courts assess whether a decision announces a new rule by determining if it overrules prior law or introduces a significant change in precedent. Tincher is recognized as announcing a new rule, altering the standard of proof and the roles of judges and juries in strict liability cases.

To determine retroactive effect, Pennsylvania courts evaluate three factors: whether retroactive application furthers the new rule's purpose, if parties would be unfairly prejudiced by relying on the old rule, and whether retroactive application would negatively impact justice administration. In this case, applying Tincher retroactively supports its purpose by allowing greater flexibility for plaintiffs in proving product defects, thereby expanding the scope of strict liability claims. It also shifts the determination of defective condition from a legal question to a factual one for juries, addressing the impractical nature of the prior law that required courts to balance risks and utilities. This shift alleviates the burden on trial courts to conduct complex social policy inquiries regarding product safety.

Parties are not unfairly prejudiced by the retroactive application of the Tincher decision because reliance on the previous rule does not alter their conduct in tort cases. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Leland v. J.T. Baker Chem. Co., established that strict liability under the Second Restatement focuses on the product's condition, not the defendant's conduct. This principle is echoed in jurisdictions that utilize consumer expectations and risk-utility approaches, which prioritize the product's condition over the manufacturer's actions. Consequently, defendants in this case could not have justifiably relied on the previous Azzarello rule, since the focus remains on the product, not the manufacturer’s behavior. 

Additionally, the court finds no unfair prejudice to either party by allowing the trier-of-fact to assess risks and utilities rather than the court, as the defendants did not rely on the "error in judgment" jury instruction as a substantive legal alteration. The retroactive effect of the new rule will not negatively impact the administration of justice, particularly because the case is still in the pre-trial phase, avoiding potential delays or costs of a retrial. The application of Tincher clarifies judicial roles and standards of proof, likely enhancing procedural efficiency. Thus, the court will apply the Tincher decision to evaluate the alleged design defects outlined in the complaint, affirming that this decision aligns with the general rule of retroactivity.

Nathan claims that the lack of flesh-detection technology in the Model TS2400-1 benchtop table saw constitutes a design defect. The core issue is whether incorporating such technology was a reasonable alternative at the time of the saw's sale, given that Pennsylvania law does not adopt the Third Restatement's reasonable alternative design test. However, the feasibility, cost, and effectiveness of a safer alternative design are relevant under Pennsylvania's risk-utility test, which assesses if the product's dangers outweigh the costs of safety measures.

Defendants argue that flesh-detection technology was not feasible in 2006, citing that SawStop, which produces this technology, only offers larger industrial saws that do not compare to the Model TS2400-1. Despite this, Defendants provide no substantial evidence regarding the feasibility, cost, or effectiveness of the technology in question, relying on a single observation about SawStop's product line. The court emphasizes that arguments presented in briefs do not constitute evidence and cannot create factual disputes necessary to counter a summary judgment motion. Consequently, the court finds that Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated the absence of a triable issue regarding whether the absence of flesh-detection technology rendered the saw defective under the risk-utility test, particularly neglecting to address the probability and severity of harm associated with the saw itself. The lack of sufficient evidence from Defendants fails to establish that no genuine issues exist for trial.

Defendants have not conclusively demonstrated that Nathan's claims lack merit regarding the alleged defectiveness of the Model TS2400-1 table saw. Nathan has presented expert opinions suggesting that incorporating feasible flesh-detection technology into small table saws is possible. The disagreement between Nathan's experts and Defendants' expert creates a factual dispute that must be resolved at trial. Additionally, there is contention over the cost of implementing this technology, with Nathan asserting it would only add $50 to the price of a $400 saw, while Defendants cite higher costs. As Nathan is the non-moving party, his version of the facts is accepted as true for the purpose of this summary judgment motion. The potential increase in manufacturing cost raises questions about its reasonableness, necessitating trial examination. Furthermore, Nathan has provided data on the social costs and frequency of table saw accidents, as well as the effectiveness of flesh-detection technology, indicating that a trial is needed to assess whether the risk of harm from the product outweighs the costs of implementing safety measures. Consequently, the determination of whether the absence of flesh-detection technology constitutes a design defect remains an issue for trial.

Nathan claims that the absence of an independent riving knife on the table saw constitutes a design defect. The Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts fails to address this issue, which is sufficient to deny their motion for summary judgment. Even considering additional materials referenced by the Defendants, summary judgment remains inappropriate due to unresolved factual questions. The Defendants argue, based on expert testimony, that a riving knife was not a viable alternative design at the time of manufacture and that it would not have prevented kickbacks in Nathan’s accident. However, Nathan's expert, Darry Holt, asserts that riving knives have been in use since 1917, provide protection against kickbacks, and could have been designed to meet U.S. safety standards. This expert testimony raises significant factual issues that cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

Additionally, Nathan argues that the lack of a user-friendly blade guard is a design defect, as its removal for certain cuts often leads users to permanently discard it. While the Defendants cite depositions indicating Nathan found the blade guard manageable and had not permanently removed it at the time of the accident, Nathan counters that the guard's design causes visibility issues and is often not used by table saw owners. He testifies that he removed the guard to improve visibility during a narrow cut. This presents a factual dispute regarding the blade guard assembly as well. Consequently, the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment concerning Nathan's allegations of defective design related to both the riving knife and blade guard.

The complaint alleges inadequate warnings regarding the dangers of removing the blade guard on a saw and insufficient safety instructions. Nathan, in his brief, agrees to the dismissal of his strict liability and negligence claims based on the failure to warn, thus allowing Defendants to receive partial summary judgment on this issue. Regarding Counts III and IV concerning breach of implied warranty, Nathan also consents to their dismissal, enabling the Defendants to obtain summary judgment on these counts as well.

Defendants assert that Nathan’s misuse of the saw was the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing Pennsylvania law that allows evidence of misuse to challenge causation in strict liability cases. Misuse is defined as a plaintiff's unforeseeable and extraordinary use of a product, with the burden on the defendant to prove that such misuse was the sole or superseding cause of the incident. Summary judgment on misuse is only appropriate if there are no factual disputes.

Defendants claim that the accident could have been avoided if Nathan had not removed the blade guard, relying on the fact that he disregarded the saw’s manual and warnings. However, Nathan counters that Defendants failed to provide direct evidence establishing that the removal of the guard was the sole cause of the accident, presenting expert testimony from Darry Holt, who argued that Nathan's approach could have still resulted in contact with the blade even if the guard had been in place. This expert opinion creates a factual dispute regarding causation, preventing Defendants from obtaining summary judgment based on alleged misuse.

In conclusion, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is partially granted and partially denied.

David Peot, Ryobi’s Director of Engineering, testified that the joint venture was established to prevent any single manufacturer from adopting flesh detection technology independently, thereby protecting other manufacturers from potential legal liabilities. In the case of Williams v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania referenced the Tincher decision in a state court action that was subsequently removed to federal court, but did not address retroactivity issues. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court articulated a policy where product sellers are liable for damages incurred by consumers from reasonable product use, placing the responsibility for injury on the product suppliers. There is a general presumption of strict liability for any product, assuming sufficient evidence of a defect exists. Notably, the only fact not included in the Defendants' LR 56.1 statement relates to Nathan's removal of the blade guard.