Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPPLY CHAIN LIABILITY ISSUES—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—W.D. Pa.: Tractor-trailer supplier’s motion to dismiss denied in operator death suit, (Mar 1, 2024)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The decedent’s estate’s complaint sufficiently put the supplier on notice of the claims against it and the grounds of those claims.

In an action brought against several companies for being involved in the manufacture, sale, or design of a semi tractor-trailer, by the estate of a man who died in an accident while operating the vehicle, a federal district court in Pennsylvania denied the motion to dismiss filed by one of the companies. The court determined that the lumping together of the companies without distinguishing their specific roles in the accident was to be expected at the pre-discovery stage and that it would be premature to rule that the company could never be held liable (Gamble v. Paccar, Inc., February 28, 2024, Schwab, A.).

Background. A man was operating a 2002 Peterbilt semi tractor-trailer equipped with a cement mixer under the scope of his employment at Riverside Concrete & Supply, Inc. The mixer had a hydraulic chute, from which the cement in the mixer was poured. The operator brought the vehicle to a stop and stood behind it. The chute of the mixer began to move, violently striking him in the abdomen and causing severe injuries. He drove the vehicle back to his place of employment, parked the tractor, opened the door, and slid out. Other Riverside employees rushed to the man on the ground. Upon hearing his complaints of pain in his abdomen and numbness in his extremities, they transported him to a hospital for treatment. After several months of hospitalization, he died as a result of his grievous, and ultimately fatal, injuries. His estate brought suit against PACCAR, Inc.; Oshkosh Corporation; and McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc. Paccar (supplier) moved to dismiss.

Analysis. Paccar claimed it was entitled to have the estate’s strict liability failure to warn, defective design, and negligence claims dismissed because (1) it only manufactured the truck’s chassis and the chassis’ construction and/or its relation to the chute of the mixer was irrelevant; (2) the claims against it were not plausible; and (3) the estate impermissibly “lump[ed] all Defendants together and fail[ed] to distinguish among their alleged acts and omissions and their specific roles in causing Plaintiff's alleged injury,” McGee v. Johnson & Johnson, No. CV 21-639, 2023 WL 4765454 (W.D. Pa. July 26, 2023). The court held that the assertions about only making the chassis were premature at this stage and that the allegations, accepted as true, stated that the supplier either made or moved the subject vehicle through the stream of commerce prior to the vehicle’s contact with the decedent. Even if it did not do so, the complaint added that its predecessor did so, and that Paccar had acquired its predecessor’s assets and liabilities and continued the product line(s). Considering Pennsylvania’s successor liability theory, the court declined to hold that the supplier could never be held legally liable for the manufacture, sale, or distribution of the cement mixer.

Next, the court noted that it was not bound by the decision in McGee and that the facts of McGee did not apply to the instant situation. Although the allegations were identical as to each of the three companies, this was not the same as “lumping” them together and leaving them with no clear picture of what each company did to be found liable under one or more tort theories. The companies would know what they did (or did not) manufacture, sell, or distribute, or what liabilities each assumed under a successor liability theory to with respect to the tractor. It was the estate which did not know the answer to these questions. Discovery, along with the Rule 26 disclosures, could enable the estate to assess whether it sued any extraneous corporate entity who can bear no liability under either a strict product liability or negligence theory. The allegations provided each company fair notice of the potential claims against them and the grounds on which the claims rested, which is all that was required at this stage of the legal proceedings, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). As such, the motion to dismiss was denied.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-2147-AJS.

Attorneys: Brian Shane Anderson (Friday & Cox, LLC) for Cynthia Gamble. Anthony M. Pisciotti (Pisciotti Lallis Erdreich, PC) for Paccar, Inc.

Companies: Paccar, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions SCLIssuesNews MotorEquipmentNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews PennsylvaniaNews