## Facts

- Pennfield Corporation owned swine housed at Mountain View Farms in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
- An electrically operated ventilation system failed, and 1,537 swine suffocated.
- Pennfield sued Meadow Valley Electric, Inc., an electrical contractor that performed repair and maintenance services on the farm’s electrical equipment, alleging defective electrical work caused the ventilation failure.
- Meadow Valley filed a joinder complaint against multiple additional defendants, including York Electrical Supply Co. (t/d/b/a YESCO) and Tri-State Electrical Supply Co., alleging defective electrical cable supplied by either York or Tri-State caused the failure.
- Meadow Valley alleged the cables purchased from York and Tri-State were indistinguishable and could not identify which supplier provided the allegedly defective cable.
- York filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, asserting Meadow Valley failed to state a claim because it could not plead that York supplied the defective cable.
- The trial court sustained York’s demurrer and dismissed Meadow Valley’s claims against York with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether a joinder plaintiff that cannot identify which of two suppliers provided an allegedly defective product may invoke alternative liability to shift the burden to each supplier to disprove responsibility.
2. Whether a market share-type theory may be applied to a two-supplier cable dispute where the joinder pleading does not allege tortious conduct by all potential suppliers.
3. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the joinder claims with prejudice, without permitting amendment after sustaining a demurrer.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the order sustaining York’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer because the joinder complaint, as pleaded, failed to state a viable claim against York.
- The court rejected Meadow Valley’s attempt to shift causation and proof obligations to York and Tri-State based solely on Meadow Valley’s inability to identify the supplier of the allegedly defective cable.
- The court held the trial court erred in refusing to permit Meadow Valley to amend its joinder complaint and concluded dismissal with prejudice was improper where a curative amendment was reasonably possible.
- The matter was remanded to allow amendment consistent with Pennsylvania’s liberal pleading-amendment policy.

## Legal Principles

- Alternative liability requires allegations that each defendant engaged in tortious conduct toward the plaintiff, with uncertainty limited to which defendant’s tortious conduct caused the harm; it is not available merely because the plaintiff cannot identify the responsible actor.
- Courts will not reallocate the burden of proving causation to “potentially innocent” defendants absent pleading and proof that all targeted defendants acted tortiously.
- Market share liability is a narrow doctrine generally confined to settings involving fungible, indistinguishable products and multiple tortious producers; it does not apply to a discrete dispute involving identified suppliers where tortious conduct by all is not adequately alleged.
- Sustaining a demurrer should not result in dismissal with prejudice when there is a reasonable possibility that amendment could cure the pleading defect; leave to amend should be granted in such circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court refused to extend alternative liability or market share concepts to excuse a joinder plaintiff’s inability to identify which of two suppliers provided an allegedly defective cable, but it required that Meadow Valley be given an opportunity to amend because Pennsylvania practice disfavors dismissal with prejudice where a curative amendment may be possible.


Pennfield Corp. v. Meadow Valley Elec., Inc., 413 Pa. Super. 187, 604 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)