On November 26, 2012, the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court voted 5-1 to affirm the Superior Court’s ruling that defendants Asia Trent Inc., Remington Arms Co., RA Brands, and the Sportsman’s Guide failed to show that the plaintiff’s highly reckless conduct in attempting to install a 20-foot-high tree stand was the sole or superseding cause of his injuries.

In Roett, the plaintiff climbed 20 feet up a tree to install a Remington Arms tree stand that he had purchased from the Sportsman’s Guide. While attempting to set the stand, an act where Reott raised himself up on his toes before coming down gently on his heels, the strap broke causing him to fall to the ground and suffer a crushed vertebrae.

The plaintiff claimed to have performed this maneuver hundreds of times on other tree stands before the day of the accident. The plaintiff filed a products liability suit under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, alleging that the tree stand was defective. During his investigation, the plaintiff discovered that the two segments of the locking strap were glued together, as opposed to stitched and glued.

The Butler County Court of Common Pleas granted the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict as to the defectiveness, but not as to the causation. The jury returned a defense verdict and the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The defense presented evidence that the plaintiff’s self-taught “setting the stand” maneuver constituted highly reckless conduct.

Upon appeal, the Superior Court 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 bears the burden of proof. The court held that the defendants had the burden of proving that the plaintiff’s highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of his injuries. The court presented a two-part test, where the defendants were required to prove that the plaintiff acted in a highly reckless manner and that the conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the injury.

What It Means to You

This decision by the Supreme Court has the potential to alter the way in which products liability matters are litigated throughout the Commonwealth. Defendants will now be required to show that a plaintiff’s highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court has moved the needle away from merely showing comparative negligence and has placed a larger burden on the shoulders of thedefense.