Products Liability Law Reporter

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in Myriak v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 723 A.2d 45 (N.J. 1999), which established the indeterminate product defect test, does not preclude a plaintiff from using the circumstantial evidence test to prove a product was defective, even where the plaintiff cannot identify the product’s specific defect.

Kevin McManus was injured while using a Crown PTH 50 Series pallet jack to deliver two pallets to a nursing home. He sued Crown Equipment Corp., alleging that the pallet jack contained a manufacturing defect that prevented its forks from lowering correctly. The pallet jack involved in McManus’s injury was either lost or destroyed, preventing his engineering expert from identifying the product’s specific defect. The plaintiff then sought to prove manufacturing defect suing the circumstantial evidence test, which enables a plaintiff to prove a product defect based on several factors, including the product’s age, prior usage, and expected durability.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the trial court held that the plaintiff was precluded from using the circumstantial evidence test because he could not identify the pallet jack’s specific defect.

Reversing, the Third Circuit found that to prove a manufacturing defect under the New Jersey Products Liability Act, a plaintiff must show that a product was defective, the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control, and the defect proximately caused injury to the plaintiff or a foreseeable user. Citing case law, the court also noted that establishing that a product was defective requires proof that something was wrong with the product, not proof of a specific defect. The court found that under New Jersey law, a plaintiff may prove a product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control by offering direct evidence of the defect, showing the incident would not normally have occurred absent a product defect under the circumstantial evidence test, or negating other causes for the product’s failure. In Myriak, the court added, the state high court offered another method of proving a product defect claim, establishing the indeterminate product defect test, which may be used in products liability cases where a plaintiff cannot prove a specific defect. Under the test, it may be inferred that a plaintiff’s harm was caused by a product defect when the harm was of the kind that ordinarily occurs from a defect and did not result from other causes.

The court rejected the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs who are unable to allege a specific product defect are limited to using the indeterminate product defect test. While the Myriak court limited the indeterminate product defect test to cases where a plaintiff cannot show a specific product defect, the court did not hold that such plaintiffs are limited to this test, which constitutes an option, not a requirement, the court said.

Holding that the plaintiff here was entitled to an opportunity to raise a genuine issue of material fact under the circumstantial evidence test, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Citation: McManus v. Barnegat Operating Co., 2020 WL 5870248 (3d Cir. Oct. 2, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: William J. Martin, Westmont, N.J.