## Facts

- Francis and Louise Spino bought a Type III ordinary household ladder manufactured by John S. Tilley Ladder Co., designed for ordinary household use with a 200-pound load limit.
- In November 1986, Louise Spino used the ladder in her kitchen, placed a bucket of water on the shelf, climbed it, and while cleaning the ceiling heard a crack, the ladder shook, and she fell.
- She suffered fractures to her tibia and fibula and underwent surgery.
- The Spinos sued, alleging the ladder was defectively designed because it lacked an “anti-split device,” causing a leg to crack or split and the ladder to fail.
- At trial, the Spinos proceeded only on strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A), abandoning negligence claims and dismissing the retailer/distributor.
- The trial court allowed Tilley’s president to testify that the company had received no prior similar leg-split accident reports or claims, based on a company log of problem reports and claims.
- The jury found the ladder was not defective; judgment was entered for Tilley, and the Superior Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. In a strict products liability action, may a manufacturer introduce evidence of the absence of prior similar accident reports or claims to show no defect or no causation, and if so, what foundation is required?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.
- The trial court did not err, and did not abuse its discretion, in admitting “lack of prior claims” evidence.
- The defense verdict for Tilley remained intact.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of the absence of prior accidents or claims may be admissible to show the nonexistence of a defect, lack of causal relationship, or lack of knowledge, if a proper foundation is laid.
- A proper foundation generally requires:
  - Substantial similarity between the conditions of the product’s prior use and the circumstances in which comparable accidents would likely have occurred; and
  - A reasonably complete, trustworthy system for receiving, recording, and retaining accident reports and claims such that similar incidents would likely have been captured.
- Admissibility, including weighing probative value against risks of unfair prejudice or confusion, is committed to the trial court’s discretion and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Admission of absence-of-claims evidence in a § 402A case is not barred merely because it may also bear on the manufacturer’s knowledge; it may be used to address defect and causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that absence-of-prior-claims evidence is admissible in Pennsylvania strict products liability cases when supported by substantially similar use conditions and a reliable, reasonably comprehensive recordkeeping system, and it affirmed the defense verdict after finding the trial court’s foundation and relevance determinations were within its discretion.


Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co., 696 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 1997)