It is inevitable that in cases filed based upon strict products liability, the product manufacturer will argue that the accident occurred because of the carelessness of the use of the product. Whether it's a ladder, a car, a helmet, a saw or a car seat, one defense argument always raised is that the consumer failed to take necessary precautions in the use of the product or that the consumer's use was a proximate cause of the harm. Tied to these arguments is the recent argument that despite precedential case law, since a manufacturer's liability may be predicated upon "risk-utility," the jury should consider the consumer's opportunity to take steps to avoid the accident. None of these legal arguments are valid. Our courts have made it abundantly clear that comparative negligence (i.e., possible contributory negligence of a plaintiff) is not a defense to a strict liability claim. See Kimco Development v. Michael D's Carpet, 637 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1993); Robinson v. B.F. Goodrich Tire, 664 A.2d 616 (Pa.Super. 1995); Staymates v. ITT Holub Industries, a Division of International Telephone & Telegraph, 527 A.2d 140 (Pa. Super. 1987). The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Smith v. Weissenfels, 657 A.2d 949 (Pa.Super. 1995) held:

"where a defendant is found liable to a plaintiff under principles of strict liability, the comparative negligence of the plaintiff is irrelevant and may not be used to reduce the responsibility of a strictly liable defendant for the entire damage award."