eNotes: Federal – Liability – May 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

FEDERAL CASE SUMMARIES

Land v. Rock Exotica, LLC
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72011

Decided: April 16, 2025

Manufacturer’s Motion for summary judgment granted due to inadmissible expert witness testimony.

Background

Plaintiff filed suit against Rock Exotica, alleging that a defective climbing harness caused him injury when it failed during use, causing Plaintiff to fall over 40 feet to the ground. Plaintiff asserted that the harness was defectively designed or manufactured. Rock Exotica disputed the Plaintiff’s allegations, arguing that the harness in question was manufactured in accordance with industry standards and underwent extensive testing, with no evidence of a design or manufacturing defect. The Defendant maintained that the product was safe for its intended use at the time of the incident and that Plaintiff may have misused the product or failed to follow the provided safety instructions. The Court examined Plaintiff’s claims under the Consumer Expectations Test (“CET”) and the Risk/Utility Test.

The Court found that the CET did not apply to the harness as it was not a product “within the ken of an ordinary consumer.” In support of Defendant’s liability under the Risk/Utility test, Plaintiff relied upon the expert testimony of Dr. James Glancey to establish that the design of the product was defective. Dr. Glancey posited that a guard on the harness may have prevented the fall. The defense challenged Dr. Glancey’s opinions and the Court held a Daubert hearing. Dr. Glancey offered testimony in support of his conclusions; however, the Court found that his methodology was insufficient. Dr. Glancey did not produce a prototype or drawings in support of his hypothesis that a guard may have prevented the fall. Further, Dr. Glancey did not identify any other comparable products that used a guard. Following Dr. Glancey’s testimony, the defense filed a Supplemental Brief in support of their Motion for summary judgment.

Holding

The Court held that liability against the Defendant was not appropriate under the CET as the risk of using the product was too complex for a member of the public to ascertain. The Plaintiff only offered the testimony of Dr. Glancey to support his position under the Risk/Utility Test. In a scathing critique of Dr. Glancey’s testimony, the Court found that Dr. Glancey relied on nothing more than “his status as an engineering expert” to reach his conclusions. After striking Dr. Glancey’s testimony, the Court found that Plaintiff did not have any evidence that the device was defective and granted Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment. The Court also granted summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Defendant, holding that Plaintiff could not show causation between Defendant’s breach of duty to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s injuries. The uncontroverted evidence showed that the harness did not cause Plaintiff’s fall.

Questions about this case can be directed to Ken Newman at (412) 926-1425 or knewman@tthlaw.com or to Sarah Cobbs at (412) 926-1447 or scobbs@tthlaw.com.

E.Z. v. JSKLD Hospitality Enter., LLC
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
No. 2:23-cv-835

Decided: March 15, 2025

Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim of negligence against hockey tournament organizer for accident occurring at approved tournament hotel.

Background

The minor plaintiff collided with a sign that was located in a strip of grass near the drop off/pick up area of the Harmarville Holiday Inn. The minor was participating in a hockey tournament, and he and his father were staying at the Holiday Inn as it was an approved hotel of the tournament organizer. The tournament organizer had an “undeniably plain and restrictive requirement” that the tournament participants stay at one of the hotels on the organizer’s “approved” list.

The minor’s parents filed a premises liability suit against the hotel owner and filed a “general negligence” claim against the tournament organizer for its alleged failure to take reasonable care to ensure that “its hockey tournament requirements were safe for its minor participants.” The tournament organizer filed a Motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the negligence claim. The District Court found that Plaintiff’s theory of liability was that the tournament organizer breached a duty of care to the participants in failing to visit the approved hotels, including the one at issue, and failing to inspect the hotel premises to assess that the hotels were safe for the “participants and their families.” Based on these theories of liability, the Court determined that the tournament organizer owed no affirmative duty to inspect the hotels that their tournament goers were required to use.

Holding

While the Court agreed that the tournament organizer could be responsible for negligence related to the tournament itself, the duty did not extend to properties that were controlled and maintained by others. The Court noted that even if inspections of the hotels were performed by the tournament organizer, it had no actual control over the hotels or their operation to take any action if anything was found. The District Judge re-affirmed that premises liability concerns the relationship between an individual or entity in control of the business/premises and the business invitee. The Court refused to extend that principle. It would be “simply unreasonable” to allow plaintiffs to impute a premises liability duty upon a third-party unaffiliated with the subject premises at issue.

Questions about this case can be directed to Rebecca Sember-Izsak at (412) 926-1446 or rsember@tthlaw.com.