Burnley, D. v. Loews Hotel

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the judgment entered in favor of Dana and Ralph Burnley in a products-liability action arising from Dana Burnley’s fall over a defective cable protector at a hotel. The court upheld application of Pennsylvania’s product-line exception to successor liability against Checkers Industrial Products, LLC and rejected Checkers’s challenges concerning JNOV, evidentiary rulings, trial procedure, and the verdict. The court also affirmed the trial court’s molding of the verdict challenged in the Burnleys’ cross-appeal.

Holdings

1. Dawejko remains binding Pennsylvania precedent, and it continues to provide the controlling parameters of the product-line exception to the general rule that an asset purchaser does not ordinarily assume the seller's liabilities.
2. The Dawejko factors, including the Ray considerations, are relevant but not mandatory; the product-line exception is to be applied flexibly rather than through a finite checklist.
3. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Checkers was a product-line successor and was liable for the defective Firefly cable protector.
4. The trial court did not err by submitting the product-line-exception issue to the jury.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying a mistrial.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or excluding the evidence.
7. Checkers waived its inconsistent-verdict challenge by failing to object before the jury was discharged.
8. The Burnleys waived their challenge to the trial court's molding and apportionment of the verdict by failing to raise it in a post-trial motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Checkers was entitled to JNOV because Pennsylvania had not expressly adopted the product-line exception to successor liability.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support application of the product-line exception to Checkers.
3. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury, rather than the judge, to determine whether the product-line exception applied.
4. Whether the admission of evidence concerning IAT's lack of insurance required a mistrial or new trial.
5. Whether testimony concerning IAT's assets and the Burnleys' late-disclosed employment and medical evidence required a new trial.
6. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Checkers's proposed detailed verdict sheet.
7. Whether Checkers waived its challenge to an allegedly inconsistent verdict.
8. Whether the Burnleys waived their challenge to the trial court's molding and apportionment of the verdict.

Disposition

affirmed