L.T. v. Kubota Mfg. of Am. Corp., 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 74 (Pa. Superior Ct., February 14, 2025)
OPINION BY BOWES, J.: L.T., a minor by and through his parent and natural guardian,1 Alicia Copenhaver, and Ms. Copenhaver, individually (collectively “Plaintiffs”), challenge the order that granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Kubota Manufacturing of America Corporation, Kubota Corporation, and Kubota Tractor Corporation (collectively “Kubota” or “Defendants”). While we affirm as to the dismissal of one count that Plaintiffs do not challenge on appeal, we reverse as to the remaining counts because the trial court’s decision was the product of factual and legal errors and further constituted an usurpation of the jury’s role as fact finder. Accordingly, we remand the case for trial on those counts the Court chose between conflicting experts and attributed credibility to Defendant’s expert but not the Plaintiff’s. The consumer expectations and risk utility paradigms are not mutually exclusive. Plaintiff may pursue them both in the alternative.
From a thorough review of the summary judgment record, we conclude that Plaintiffs’ strict liability and negligence actions are supported by sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Initially, we disagree with Defendants’ assessment of Dr. Ketchman’s report as not well-supported. The report delineated that Dr. Ketchman’s opinions were based upon his review of enumerated documents establishing the facts of the case; his inspection of the site of the accident and the BX2200; his testing of the tractor; his “formal education, experience and expertise in mechanical, safety, and human-factors engineering, and product design” as reflected in his curriculum vitae; application of the safety design hierarchy (“SDH”), which is the “universally accepted standard for the design of all products, including the [BX2200;]” and his “investigation of riding lawnmower/tractor child back over amputation incidents” and “analysis of NMIR safety features and alternative safer designs since the early 1990s.”
Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument that Ms. Gladfelter’s failure to heed the general hazard warnings included within its various manuals defeats Plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims. We agree with Plaintiffs that this argument mischaracterizes the particular danger at issue both in terms of the need to warn and consumer expectations.
Given Plaintiffs’ evidence that people within the industry were aware of a specific danger to children posed by tractors that mowed in reverse without employing available safety features to prevent the child back over hazard, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that Plaintiffs’ design defect may not proceed under the consumer expectations theory.
In the end, we acknowledge that Defendants have compelling arguments for rejecting Dr. Ketchman’s opinions that the BX2200 was defective, for believing that ordinary consumers would have appreciated the child back over hazard, and for finding that L.T. would have been injured even if they employed all Plaintiffs’ suggested safety features. However, those are arguments appropriately presented to the jury, not to the court at summary judgment. The trial court was incorrect in holding that Plaintiffs’ evidence was not of record to render summary judgment improper. Since the evidence disregarded by the trial court was indeed of record and sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact, Defendants’ liability for Plaintiffs’ damages on the design defect and failure-to-warn theories of strict liability, as well as their negligence claim, must be resolved at trial.
