Facts
- International Harvester Company manufactured an over-the-road tractor driven by John McCown.
- The tractor’s steering mechanism required significantly more effort than normal to steer, making it unusually difficult to maneuver.
- After driving for several hours, McCown stopped on the shoulder of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to inspect equipment.
- While reentering the Turnpike, McCown struck a guardrail with the tractor’s right front tire, an event not caused by steering difficulty.
- The impact caused the steering wheel to counterrotate rapidly; its spokes struck McCown’s arm, fracturing his wrist and forearm.
- Trial evidence tied the force and speed of the steering wheel’s counterrotation to the steering mechanism’s design.
- On appeal, the manufacturer conceded the steering design was defective but argued McCown’s contributory negligence in striking the guardrail should bar or limit recovery.
Issues
- Whether contributory negligence is an available defense in a strict products-liability action under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- Whether a plaintiff’s negligence contributing to the accident event (as distinct from assuming a known product risk) can reduce or bar recovery in a § 402A claim.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment for McCown.
- The court held that contributory negligence is not a defense to strict products liability under § 402A.
- The court reaffirmed that assumption of risk remains a defense where the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily proceeds in the face of a known defect and danger.
- The court rejected the manufacturer’s attempt to treat McCown’s collision with the guardrail as contributory negligence that would limit or bar § 402A recovery.
Legal Principles
- In Pennsylvania, contributory negligence does not bar or reduce recovery in a strict products-liability action under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- Comment n to § 402A rejects contributory negligence as a defense when the plaintiff merely fails to discover a defect or guard against its possibility.
- Strict liability under § 402A is distinct from negligence; importing contributory negligence would shift the case from product defect to plaintiff fault.
- Assumption of risk remains a distinct, available defense when the plaintiff knows of the defect and danger and unreasonably proceeds.
Conclusion
The court held that contributory negligence is unavailable as a defense in § 402A strict products-liability actions, while preserving assumption of risk as a separate defense based on a plaintiff’s knowing, voluntary encounter with a known product danger.