Stephen McConnell, left, and James M Beck, right, of Reed Smith. Courtesy photos

Pennsylvania's Exclusion of Compliance Evidence

Any products liability defendant will attest to the importance of compliance with regulatory standards. Lack of such compliance would be a vulnerability, perhaps even resulting in negligence per se. Proof of such compliance, by contrast, might support a complete defense of preemption. See, e.g., Riegel v. Medtronic, 552 U.S. 312 (2008). Even absent preemption, evidence of compliance can provide comfort to a jury that the product is reasonably safe. But in Sullivan v. Werner, 306 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that barred evidence of a product manufacturer's compliance with government (and industry) standards in a strict liability design defect case. The underlying theory was that such evidence goes to due care and is relevant only to negligence, not strict liability.