## Facts

- Charles A. Madonna operated a Harley Davidson motorcycle with Dolores M. Wilson as passenger; both were injured in an accident.
- The motorcycle’s front brake caliper had an upper mounting bolt that was defective and subject to a recall; if it fractured during operation it could cause loss of control.
- Plaintiffs alleged the bolt fractured during operation and was the sole cause of the crash; defendants asserted the bolt was intact until impact and that the crash resulted from Madonna’s operation of the motorcycle.
- Over plaintiffs’ objection, defendants introduced evidence that Madonna had been drinking, including witness observations of alcohol odor, a blood-alcohol test, and expert testimony estimating a blood-alcohol level of about 0.14% at the time of operation and stating he was unfit to ride.
- A defense reconstruction expert testified the bolt fractured because of the collision rather than before it.
- The claims proceeded under strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A), not negligence.

## Issues

1. In a strict products liability action, may the defense introduce evidence of the plaintiff-driver’s intoxication and manner of operation.
2. Is plaintiff-conduct evidence admissible when offered to negate causation by supporting a theory that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole or superseding cause, rather than to show contributory negligence or comparative fault.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held the intoxication and operation evidence was admissible because it was relevant to whether the alleged defect was a substantial factor in causing the accident.
- The court rejected the argument that admission of this evidence improperly injected comparative negligence concepts into strict liability where the evidence was used to address causation.
- The court found no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings supporting the jury’s special-interrogatory finding that the defect was not a substantial factor.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania strict products liability under § 402A, negligence concepts and fault comparison generally may not be used to excuse a defect or apportion responsibility.
- Evidence of a plaintiff’s conduct may be admissible in strict liability when relevant to causation, including to show the defect was not a substantial factor or that plaintiff conduct was the sole or superseding cause.
- Plaintiff-conduct evidence is not barred merely because it reflects careless or reckless behavior; admissibility turns on whether it is offered for causation rather than for comparative negligence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of intoxication and operation evidence in a strict products liability trial because it bore directly on causation, allowing defendants to argue the defect did not substantially cause the accident and that the crash resulted from the operator’s conduct.


Madonna v. Harley Davidson, Inc., 708 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)