## Facts

- Bruce Richetta, a construction worker, used a Stanley Model N80CB-1 pneumatic nail gun manufactured in 2001 and purchased in 2002.
- At a jobsite, Richetta placed the connected nail gun on top of a six-foot ladder and left to retrieve tools without disconnecting the air hose.
- Returning with screws and an electric screwdriver, Richetta approached the ladder; the nail gun fell, remained connected to air, and discharged a nail into his chest upon impact.
- The tool was a contact-trip nailer designed to fire only when the trigger was pulled and the contact-trip was depressed.
- The nail gun lacked a separate safety switch or trigger lock; plaintiffs alleged this design made the product defective and that an additional safety feature would have prevented firing while not in active use.
- Plaintiffs withdrew negligence and warranty claims and proceeded on strict products liability (design defect) and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the strict-liability design-defect claim presented triable issues on (a) foreseeable use or misuse, (b) whether warnings could render the product non-defective, and (c) whether the alleged defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
2. Whether the evidence could support punitive damages by showing outrageous conduct, evil motive, or reckless indifference by the manufacturer.

## Decision

- Denied summary judgment on the strict-liability design-defect claim because foreseeable-use, defect, and causation questions were for the jury.
- Granted summary judgment for the manufacturer on punitive damages because the record did not support a finding of reckless indifference or evil motive.
- Dismissed negligence and warranty counts without analysis because plaintiffs withdrew them.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania strict products liability, liability may turn on whether a product is unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably foreseeable use or misuse; foreseeability and the scope of use are often jury questions.
- Product warnings do not automatically cure an otherwise defective design; whether a design is defective despite warnings may remain a question of fact.
- In strict liability, a plaintiff must show the alleged defect was a substantial factor in causing the harm; user negligence does not necessarily eliminate causation as a matter of law.
- Punitive damages under Pennsylvania law require proof of outrageous conduct, evil motive, or reckless indifference; negligence or even gross negligence is insufficient absent evidence of conscious disregard of a known high risk.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the design-defect strict-liability claim to proceed to trial because a jury could reasonably find the nail gun’s lack of a safety lock contributed to a foreseeable accident despite warnings, but it removed punitive damages from the case due to insufficient evidence of reckless indifference by the manufacturer.


Richetta v. Stanley Fastening Sys., L.P., 661 F. Supp. 2d 500 (E.D. Pa. 2009)