## Facts

- A residential fire occurred in Linda Pearsall’s home, killing her husband and two minor children.
- The home contained smoke and heat detectors manufactured by defendants’ predecessors; Emhart Industries, Inc. and Notifier Company were sued as successors.
- Pearsall, as administratrix, alleged the detectors were defectively designed and negligently manufactured and failed to operate during the fire.
- Plaintiff contended the lack of a timely alarm deprived the family of warning and contributed to the fatalities.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the detectors malfunctioned and that the malfunction was a substantial factor in causing the deaths.
2. Whether the jury instructions improperly permitted wrongful death damages for the children based on the pecuniary value of services and emotional support beyond minority.
3. Whether the children’s survival awards should be set aside based on alleged jury misunderstanding of expert economic testimony.
4. Whether plaintiff’s emotional distress claim was properly submitted to the jury.
5. Whether challenged evidentiary and trial-management rulings (including use of a HUD pamphlet, testing-instruction materials, failure-to-warn evidence, exhibits in the jury room, and closing argument) required a new trial.
6. Whether the damages verdict was excessive and whether Pennsylvania delay damages were improper or unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The jury found defendants liable and awarded $2,451,938; the court added $474,937 in delay damages for a total judgment of $2,926,875.
- The court denied defendants’ post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the alarms were defective, failed to function during the fire, and that this failure was a substantial factor in the deaths.
- The court upheld the wrongful death and survival damages instructions and declined to disturb the jury’s awards.
- The court ruled the emotional distress claim was properly submitted and supported by the evidence.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings, exhibit handling, or closing argument.
- The court concluded the verdict was not so excessive as to warrant remittitur or a new trial and upheld the award of delay damages.

## Legal Principles

- In products liability, a defect may be inferred from circumstantial evidence of a product malfunction when the circumstances reasonably exclude abnormal use or other causes (malfunction theory).
- Causation is satisfied where the evidence supports a finding that the defect or malfunction was a substantial factor in producing the harm.
- Under Pennsylvania wrongful death law, beneficiaries may recover pecuniary losses, including the pecuniary value of a decedent’s services, society, and comfort, but not damages based solely on grief or sentimental loss.
- Survival damages and the monetary weight given to expert economic testimony are primarily for the jury, absent legal error or a result so unsupported as to require a new trial.
- Evidentiary rulings, including admission and use of safety-related publications and instruction materials, are reviewed for relevance and unfair prejudice and will not warrant reversal absent harmful error.
- A damages award will not be set aside as excessive unless it is so grossly disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience.
- Pennsylvania delay damages may be applied in diversity cases when properly awarded under state practice.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the jury’s findings that defective and negligently made fire detectors failed to operate during a fatal house fire, upheld the damages instructions and awards (including emotional distress), rejected claims of evidentiary and argument error, and affirmed the addition of Pennsylvania delay damages to the judgment.


Pearsall v. Emhart Indus., Inc., 599 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. Pa. 1984)