The Pennsylvania Superior Court has turned back a Dauphin County man's pursuit of strict liability claims following his wife's death in an accident involving a motorcycle he was operating.

A unanimous three-judge panel issued an Oct. 24 memorandum affirming a lower court's ruling that evidence presented against James A. Anderson Jr. was admissible and an opposing expert's testimony was within the scope of his expertise.

Vickie Anderson died in an accident while riding on the back of James Anderson's motorcycle, Judge H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. said in the court's opinion. Anderson brought a strict liability claim against Pirelli Tire and Susquehanna Valley Harley-Davidson, the shop that sold him a Pirelli tire, alleging that a manufacturing defect caused the accident. He also alleged a strict liability claim against SVHD, AGV Lazer USA LLC and Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group Inc. and a negligence claim against SVHD related to a helmet AGV manufactured that he claimed was defective. A jury found neither product was defective and SVHD was not negligent.

On appeal, Anderson argued that Pirelli and SVHD should not have been allowed to present a comparative negligence theory and that questions about his safety consciousness regarding the tire's air pressure and the weight carried on the motorcycle were improperly permitted.

Anderson's claim, Moulton said, was premised on the theory that a foreign object got inside the tire when it was made, causing a blemish that he noticed on the day of the accident and, eventually, causing the accident itself. Pirelli and SVHD contended that the tire had been overloaded and underinflated, causing the accident. Moulton accepted the defense as impeachment evidence.

“Such evidence was relevant to the credibility of Anderson's testimony that he noticed a 'blemish' on the tire during the trip … and defendants used the evidence for that purpose during closing arguments,” Moulton said.

Moulton also said evidence regarding the weight carried on the motorcycle was properly admitted as evidence related to causation, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury that it was to be used only for that purpose.

Anderson further argued that the trial court wrongly allowed the expert testimony of Dr. Garry Brock Jr. Referring to the trial court's ruling, Moulton noted that Brock was offered as an expert in biomechanical engineering, not helmet design, as Anderson asserted, and that Brock's doctorate in mechanical engineering with a focus in biomechanics sufficed as qualification to testify on the issue.

“Given Pennsylvania's liberal standard for qualification of experts, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Dr. Brock to testify,” Moulton said.

Moulton also rejected Anderson's claim that Brock testified to matters beyond the scope of his report, finding that the testimony Anderson complained of was all listed and discussed in the report.

Steven Mezrow of Pansini & Mezrow, who represented Anderson, did not return a call for comment.

Mark Gebauer of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott represented Harley Davidson and said he agreed with the decision.

Neither William Stubits of German, Gallagher & Murtagh, who represented Pirelli; Maureen Jordan of Hendrzak & Lloyd, who represented SVHD; nor Richard Perr of Fineman Krekstein & Harris, who represented AGV, returned calls for comment.