## Facts

- Thelma Greiner was a passenger in a Volkswagen driven by Judith T. Nickel.
- Nickel drove on the wrong side of the road toward an oncoming car, then turned back into her lane.
- Almost immediately after correcting course, Nickel faced a concrete bridge railing about ten feet ahead.
- Traveling roughly 30–60 mph, Nickel turned sharply left to avoid the railing; the vehicle overturned, injuring Greiner.
- Greiner sued the manufacturer on Pennsylvania strict products-liability principles, alleging (among other theories) failure to warn of the vehicle’s tendency to roll over during sharp steering maneuvers.
- Volkswagen filed a third-party claim against Nickel.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Pennsylvania strict liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A), there was sufficient evidence that the absence of a rollover warning was a proximate cause of the accident and injuries, such that the failure-to-warn theory should have been submitted to the jury.

## Decision

- On remand from the Third Circuit, the district court treated proximate cause as the dispositive question and did not reach whether the product was “unreasonably dangerous” absent a warning.
- The court held the record contained insufficient evidence that a warning would have prevented the rollover or reduced the harm in the circumstances presented.
- Using the undisputed time-distance context, the court reasoned that at 30 mph the car would traverse ten feet in about one-quarter second, leaving no meaningful opportunity to act differently because of a warning.
- The court concluded that once Nickel was ten feet from the bridge railing, a serious accident was inevitable; Greiner did not show that a different outcome was realistically available with a warning.
- Because proximate cause was too remote on undisputed facts, the court resolved the issue as a matter of law and reinstated judgment for Volkswagen.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania strict products liability applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, the plaintiff must prove both an “unreasonably dangerous” condition and that the condition was a proximate cause of the injury; failure to prove either defeats the claim.
- Proximate cause is ordinarily for the jury, but it becomes a question of law where material facts are not disputed and the causal connection is clearly too remote.
- In a failure-to-warn claim, causation requires evidence that an adequate warning could have been heeded in time to avoid the accident or meaningfully lessen injury; speculation that a warning might have helped is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated judgment for the manufacturer because the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that the absence of a rollover warning proximately caused the accident or injuries, given the immediate emergency and the lack of time or feasible alternatives for the driver to act differently.


Greiner v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 429 F. Supp. 495 (E.D. Pa. 1977)