The Limits of Predecessor Strict Liability in Pennsylvania
Any manufacturer seeking to sell its product line should carefully consider whether to completely divest all interest in and control of the product line due to a risk of being subjected to strict liability for future product-related injuries. In a case that constitutes both a win and a warning for product designers, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently made clear that strict liability only attaches to “sellers” of products. Where a product line is divested prior to an injury, the key consideration is what, if any, control the divesting company retained over the product line. Unless control is fully relinquished, the predecessor manufacturer may be held strictly liable for post-divestment injuries.
In Thorpe v. Bollinger Sports LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119643 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 2015), the plaintiff argued that Bell Sports Inc. should be held strictly liable for an eye injury sustained by the plaintiff in 2014 allegedly caused by an exercise product, the Embark resistance band. The resistance band had been the subject of a recall in 2011. Bell sold the Embark product line to Bollinger Sports LLC in 2012. According to the plaintiff, Bell never disclosed to Bollinger that the product line had been the subject of a recall.
