Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EVIDENTIARY ISSUES—TOOLS AND HARDWARE—Pa. Super.: Kubota faces trial over allegedly defective mower, (Feb 21, 2025)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Conflicting expert opinions created a genuine issue of material fact.

A case that involved an allegedly defective Kubota tractor mower that caused severe injuries to a boy when the boy’s grandmother accidentally backed over him will proceed to trial. The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court erred in disregarding the expert testimony and evidence provided by the plaintiffs in their opposition to Kubota’s motion for summary judgment. The court also held that the trial court improperly chose between conflicting expert evidence at the summary judgment stage, which is not the role of the court; such issues should be decided by a jury (L.T. v. Kubota Manufacturing of America Corp., No. 1310 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 14, 2025)).

Background. In 2011, the plaintiff was operating a Kubota BX2200 tractor mower when she reversed the mower and struck her grandson, L.T., who had slipped on the grass behind her. The mower lacked rear guards, and its blades remained engaged when reversing. As a result, L.T.'s ankle was severely injured, and his foot and toes were nearly severed. He was airlifted to the hospital, where his leg was ultimately amputated below the knee.

The child and his mother filed suit against Kubota and others claiming negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. The grandmother died during the course of the case, and her estate settled its claims. The case proceeded against Kubota.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Kubota, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently shown that a genuine issue of material fact existed. The trial court ruled that the expert testimony provided by the plaintiffs could not create a genuine issue of material fact, as it was allegedly not part of the record due to procedural issues in filing. The court stated that it would not consider any of the evidence proffered by the plaintiffs in opposing Kubota’s request for summary judgment because the documents were attached as exhibits to their brief in opposition to the motion, rather than to their response to the motion. However, in its opinion, the trial court discussed the expert’s report and industry standards documents in addressing the viability of the plaintiffs’ claims, if only to highlight how they might have defeated the motion for summary judgment if they were able to be considered. The court stated that the “[p]laintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence of record to consider this a ‘battle of the experts’ which might preclude summary judgment on this claim. A jury, unable to consider Plaintiffs’ expert report, would not be able to conclude what was a reasonable design for the Kubota BX2200.”

The trial court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the lack of safety features or warnings caused the boy’s injuries. The trial court relied upon the opinions of Kubota’s expert, and the industry standards alleged by the defense to apply to the BX2200, to conclude that the plaintiffs’ strict products liability and negligence claims failed as a matter of law.

The plaintiffs appealed.

Expert’s report as part of the record. The trial court refused to consider the plaintiffs’ expert report, which was attached to the plaintiffs' brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion, on the grounds that it was not part of the record. However, the superior court clarified that, according to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, “record” for purposes of summary judgment is defined as pleadings, depositions, and reports by experts that would, if filed, comply with Rule 4003.5(a)(1). The court also relied on the precedent set by Monroe v. CBH20, LP, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022), which held that expert reports need only be submitted, not filed, to be considered in a summary judgment ruling. Therefore, the superior court found that the expert report should have been considered part of the record since it was filed with the court as an exhibit to the plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the summary judgment.

Expert opinion and material issues of fact. The appeals court concluded that the trial court had improperly made factual determinations that should have been left to the jury. The trial court had credited Kubota's expert’s opinions over those of the plaintiffs' expert, particularly regarding whether the lack of safety features contributed to L.T.'s injuries. The court emphasized that such determinations were for a jury to decide, not for the judge at the summary judgment stage.

The court also found that the trial court invaded the province of the jury by making determinations on disputed material facts. The trial court accepted the opinions of Kubota's expert and industry standards without properly considering the conflicting evidence presented by the plaintiffs' expert. This was a misapplication of the law, held the court, as the existence of genuine issues of material fact should have precluded summary judgment.

Strict liability and negligence: The plaintiffs alleged strict liability design defect and failure to warn as well as negligence. They alleged that their expert’s opinion that the mower was defective because it lacked feasible safety features, like a rear guard, an engine-kill feature when put in reverse, and adequate warnings, and that those defects caused harm to the plaintiffs, was supported by the record and was sufficient to plead their claims.

The court agreed that the plaintiffs had presented evidence sufficient to proceed with their claims under both strict liability (design defect and failure to warn) and negligence. The expert testimony, which was supported by industry knowledge and feasible alternative safety designs, indicated that the tractor was defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings. The court found that the expert’s opinion applied logic to supported facts to conclude that Kubota’s defective design, lack of adequate warnings, and negligent conduct contributed to or caused L.T. to lose his leg.

Since the evidence that was erroneously disregarded by the trial court was part of the record and was sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact, the superior court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.

The case is No. 1310 MDA 2023.

Judge: Bowes, M.

Attorneys: Debra Andrea Jensen (Galfand Berger LLP) for L.T. Nancy Shane Rappaport (DLA Piper LLP) for Kubota Manufacturing of America Corp., Kubota Corp. and Kubota Tractor Corp. Michael B. Scheib (Griffith, Lerman, Lutz & Scheib) for Patricia Gladfelter.

Companies: Kubota Manufacturing of America Corp.; Kubota Corp.; Kubota Tractor Corp.

MainStory: TopStory EvidentiaryNews ToolsHardwareNews ExpertEvidenceNews CausationNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews PennsylvaniaNews