In the post-COVID era, courts and litigants have been inundated with motions seeking summary judgment based upon the argument that the manufacturer was not duty bound to design its product more safely than it did. While each case must be decided based on the facts presented, there are some overarching legal precepts that govern this analysis. This article provides some guidance in addressing this challenge.

The defendant has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle it to a judgment as a matter of law. Courts hold the movant to a strict standard. To satisfy its burden of proof, the movant must prove that it is quite clear what the truth is and exclude any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment is proper only if, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action. See Swords v. Harleysville Insurance, 883 A.2d 562, 566-67 (Pa. 2005). Summary judgment is allowed only in the clearest of cases where there is not the slightest doubt as to the absence of a triable issue of material fact. See Northern Tier Solid Waste Authority v. Commonwealth Department of Revenue, 860 A.2d 1173, 1182 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). The court's function is not to decide the issues of material fact but rather to determine whether any such issues exist.