## Facts

- Wilma Ducko bought a new 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue from Reedman Corp. in September 1984.
- On November 23, 1984, after fewer than two months of use and 1,655 miles, Ducko was driving about 55 mph on a dry highway when the car suddenly jerked right.
- Ducko testified the steering felt locked and the brakes did not respond; the car left the road, went down an embankment, and struck trees.
- Ducko suffered severe injuries, and the vehicle was destroyed.
- Plaintiffs’ expert could not identify a specific persistent mechanical defect but opined the crash was caused by a transient malfunction affecting power to steering and brakes.
- Defendants’ expert reported steering and brakes were operational and found no abnormalities.

## Issues

1. Whether circumstantial evidence of a sudden loss of steering and braking in a nearly new vehicle, without identification of a specific defect, was sufficient to establish a prima facie manufacturing-defect claim and defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether the record reasonably negated secondary causes (misuse, alteration, maintenance problems, or other explanations) so a jury could infer defect and causation.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order granting summary judgment to Chrysler Motors Corp. and Reedman Corp.
- The court held the evidence of an unexplained malfunction during normal operation of a nearly new vehicle, combined with reasonable elimination of secondary causes, permitted a jury inference of a manufacturing defect.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s malfunction theory, a plaintiff may prove a manufacturing defect through circumstantial evidence without pinpointing a specific defective component.
- To proceed under malfunction theory, the plaintiff must present evidence that: (1) the product malfunctioned, (2) the malfunction occurred during normal use, and (3) reasonable secondary causes are negated.
- On summary judgment, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; conflicts in expert testimony and competing inferences are for the factfinder, not the court.

## Conclusion

Because a jury could infer from the circumstances that a nearly new vehicle malfunctioned during normal driving and that other reasonable causes had been sufficiently negated, summary judgment was improper, and the strict-liability manufacturing-defect claim was allowed to proceed to trial.


Ducko v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 639 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)