## Facts

- In 1979, Robert and Alice Woodin bought a chest-type freezer from J.C. Penney; the freezer was manufactured by White Consolidated Industries.
- Penney’s employees delivered and placed the freezer in the Woodins’ utility room.
- Because the freezer’s cord was too short to reach the outlet, the Woodins connected it using an extension cord.
- The freezer operated continuously for more than eight years without reported problems.
- On December 2, 1987, while the Woodins were away, a fire occurred and substantially damaged their home.
- The Woodins alleged the fire was caused by a defect in the freezer’s power cord near the compressor and sued under strict products liability; Penney joined the manufacturer and other entities as additional defendants.
- At trial, the Woodins offered expert testimony that a short circuit in the power cord near the compressor caused the fire; defendants disputed the origin and cause.
- The jury found for the Woodins in stipulated damages of $67,850.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, under Pennsylvania’s malfunction theory, was sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that a defect existing when the freezer left defendants’ control caused the fire.
2. Whether the trial court properly set aside the jury’s verdict by entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendants.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for J.C. Penney and the manufacturer.
- The court held the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to infer a defect that existed at the time of sale and caused the fire.
- The court concluded the plaintiffs’ causation-and-defect theory depended on speculation, particularly given the freezer’s extended trouble-free operation and the presence of other plausible causes.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s malfunction theory, a plaintiff may prove defect circumstantially by showing (1) a malfunction and (2) the absence of abnormal use and reasonable secondary causes, without pinpointing a specific defect.
- The malfunction theory does not permit a verdict based on conjecture; the evidence must allow a reasonable inference that a defect existed when the product left the seller’s or manufacturer’s control and that the defect caused the harm.
- A lengthy period of continuous, problem-free use may substantially weaken an inference that the product was defective at the time of sale.
- On review of judgment n.o.v., the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, but judgment n.o.v. is proper where the verdict cannot stand as a matter of law because the necessary inferences are too speculative.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment n.o.v. because the plaintiffs’ circumstantial and expert evidence did not reasonably exclude secondary causes or support a non-speculative inference that a defect present at sale caused the fire after more than eight years of uninterrupted operation.


Woodin v. J.C. Penney Co., 629 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)