Brad is the co-chair of Marshall Dennehey’s Product Liability Practice and concentrates his practice on the defense of complex product liability and fire cases for small, medium and large (Fortune 500) manufacturing companies and their distributors. He defends the manufacturers of tools, electrical components, scaffolding and lifts, tires, paint, automatic doors, machinery, backhoes and other heavy industrial equipment. He also defends manufacturers of complex heat exchangers, chemical pumping systems and other industrial systems.
Brad is national counsel to a company that designs and manufactures thermal fluid heaters and boilers. His background in firefighting has given him additional insight into the defense of cases on behalf of manufacturers of electrical components, electricians and others alleged to have started fires.
Brad is a supervising attorney in the firm's Product Liability Practice. As such, he fields questions from attorneys throughout the firm regarding substantive legal issues relating to product liability. Brad manages associates in the development of their practices
Brad is a nationally certified firefighter, who serves the Penn Wynne/Overbrook Hills Fire Company (Lower Merion Fire Department) as both a firefighter and its president. Brad holds over 60 different fire and rescue certifications.
He has authored six treatises on Pennsylvania Products Liability law along with numerous other articles for a variety of publications. He has been a guest lecturer at a number of legal conferences as well as Temple University, Drexel University and The University of Wisconsin.
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in House Fire Case
We obtained summary judgement on behalf of a homeowner in a 10-plaintiff negligence action arising from a house fire. In granting summary judgement, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed that the plaintiffs’ failure to secure a cause and origin expert was fatal to their case as the fire was alleged to be electrical in nature and, thus, outside the purview of the average juror.
Denial of Nationwide and Pennsylvania-Wide Class Certification Affirmed
Our attorneys prevailed on an appeal to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ request for class certification in a product liability and warranty action. The named plaintiffs are several property owners and communities of common ownership who allege they have yellow-jacketed, corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) transporting natural gas through their structures. The flexible, yellow CSST is the modern heir to the black iron pipe formerly universal in the building industry. The flexible CSST offers advantages, including ease of installation, but the plaintiffs asserted there are latent product defects that risk failure in the event an electrical surge makes its way to the tubing, either from an in-house event or nearby lightning strike. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for nationwide and Pennsylvania-wide class certification of their disparate claims because of a failure of record proof on the elements of ascertainability of a sufficiently numerous class, predominance of typical and common claims, and an inability to demonstrate proof of liability and damages issues on a class-wide basis. The Third Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ request for interlocutory review of the class certification decision, but nevertheless affirmed the district court’s ruling on largely the same bases. Without passing on the merits of the product defect claims, the Third Circuit recognized that there was no basis to grant class-wide treatment given the differences in everything from notification to putative class members, liability and damages proofs, and the law governing claims. The denial of class certification was affirmed, and the case will proceed on an individual basis only.
Thought Leadership
The More Things Change ... Pennsylvania Products Liability Law
March 29, 2024
We were certain that the Azzarello standard, the artificial distinction between negligence and strict liability, was going to fade to some extent and strict liability defendants were going to be afforded the opportunity to present evidence that was relevant to their defenses. Instead, rather than adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts, the court surprisingly adopted the risk utility and consumer expectation tests that were first developed in California.
Defense Digest
On the Pulse…Our Product Liability Practice Group
December 1, 2021
For almost five decades, Marshall Dennehey has maintained an experienced and sophisticated group of trial attorneys involved in product liability litigation. The product liability landscape has evolved continually since first arriving on the scene in the 1970s. In the intervening forty-plus years, we have successfully represented numerous product defendants, as our defense attorneys have kept abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints and, of course, evolving technology. The co-chairs of the Product Liability Practice Group, Bradley Remick and Vlada Tasich, have over 50 years of combined experience in handling product liability cases for a myriad of domestic and international product manufacturers, involving virtually every conceivable type of consumer or industrial product. Brad has authored six treatises on Pennsylvania product liability. The demands of a defense product liability practice are such that attorneys must make certain that they are up-to-date on the latest case law. Federal and state appellate and trial court decisions directly impact the defense of product liability defendants. In that respect, we have been at the forefront, providing guidance to clients and collaborating with peers to coordinate broader defense strategies as legal landscapes have shifted in this area of law. For example, in 2014 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), upending nearly 40 years of prior strict liability precedent. Under earlier case law, a product was defective if it lacked any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use. Jurors were told that a manufacturer was a guarantor of its product’s safety. Tincher expressly rejected these standards, acknowledged that it was for the jury to decide if a product was unreasonably dangerous, and adopted two alternative standards for demonstrating defect: the consumer expectations test and the risk-utility test. While the core legal framework for analyzing if a product is defective changed, many other longstanding product issues were left unresolved; the Tincher court leaving it to future cases where the common law could develop “within the proper factual contexts against the background of targeted advocacy.” The plaintiffs’ bar generally rejected the sweeping nature of the court’s decision, which was a positive development for product defendants. They also influenced efforts by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute to fashion plaintiff-friendly suggested standard jury instructions that, by and large, held on to the principles rejected by Tincher. Marshall Dennehey attorneys were at the forefront of concerted efforts by the defense bar to draft alternative suggested jury instructions that more fairly follow the law. Our trailblazing lawyers, on behalf of our clients, also targeted cases for trial where a number of these alternative instructions were adopted by Pennsylvania courts as more accurate statements of the applicable legal standards post Tincher. Our practice group makes certain that our attorneys are keenly aware of legal changes involving product liability. We employ every avenue of defense available to our clients in order to successfully and fairly defend their products before a jury. Our experienced and sophisticated trial attorneys prepare and handle a variety of complex product liability litigation, including the representation of major product manufacturers, distributors and other manufacturers through insurance carriers. The wide variety of cases and clients we represent evidences the level of experience and sophistication that our clients have come to expect in their defense. Over the years, our attorneys have handled thousands of product liability matters, in all of the jurisdictions to which our regional practice extends. The practice includes defense of accidents and alleged failures of all types, including, for example: A broad variety of vehicle products including automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles and trucks, as well as the component manufacturers and suppliers for those products. Consumer goods and appliances. Drug and dietary supplements. Combining its resources with its legal and medical malpractice groups, the Product Liability Practice Group defends cases involving pharmaceuticals, biologics, compounding pharmacies and medical devices. Recreational equipment, including helmets and exercise equipment. Industrial and manufacturing equipment of all sorts and all sizes, ranging from small generators to large electrical components that provide electric service to municipalities. Building equipment and structures, including all the components involved therein. Elevators and escalators. Fire suppression equipment and systems. Mold and contamination issues. Asbestos and toxic tort claims. Consumer products of all varieties. Marshall Dennehey’s product liability practice also includes multi-district litigation, class actions, and commercial claims arising from allegedly poorly performing and/or defective products and/or their components. The attorneys in this practice group are recognized leaders in this area of the law. They frequently speak at national, regional and local seminars, and they are published in their field. Several have been elected as Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Their memberships include: Product Liability Advisory Council, Product Liability Committee of the Defense Research Institute, International Association of Defense Counsel, Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers of America. Marshall Dennehey recognizes the advantage available to defense counsel by employing the resources of its clients, who have the best expertise pertaining to their product, and then supplementing that expertise with our extensive expert bank to select the appropriate forensic and/or technical expert. Our entire focus is directed at presenting the product to a jury in a persuasive and understandable manner so as to achieve a defense verdict. The next decade will surely see further change, as emerging technologies continue to reshape our world and product liability law continues to evolve. Marshall Dennehey remains at the forefront of the current generation of practitioners, and we are poised and prepared to enhance the defense of product manufacturers into the future. *Brad, chair of the Product Liability Practice Group, and Vlad, co-chair of this group, are shareholders and work in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. They can be reached respectively at 215.575.2762 or bdremick@mdwcg.com and 215.575.2659 or vxtasich@mdwcg.com. Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
