Court Did Not Err in Ruling Against Philadelphia Family in Defective Helmet Case - Covell v. Bell Sports Inc.
As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was saddened to read about a ruling against a family struggling with a serious brain injury. In Covell v. Bell Sports Inc., David W. and Margaret Covell of Philadelphia sued a helmet manufacturer on behalf of their adult son, David F. Covell. The younger David Covell was riding a bicycle to his job as a schoolteacher when he was hit by a car at the entrance to the school's parking lot. He suffered such serious brain injuries that he is now disabled and his parents have been appointed as his legal guardians. On his behalf, they sued Bell Sports, the maker of his bicycle helmet, alleging that it was defectively designed and defectively failed to warn users about the risks of a blow from the edge of the helmet.
The appeal turned in part on the instructions given to the jury. Many states use a privately published standard called the Restatement of Torts, a collection of caselaw that states can voluntarily adopt in order to keep current with new decisions. Pennsylvania uses the Second Restatement of Torts, which was published in the 1950s. However, the law on products liability -- the cause of action in the Covells' case -- has seen so many changes since then that a Third Restatement of Torts: Products Liability was published in the 1990s. Importantly for this case, the Third Restatement allows manufacturers to defend themselves by arguing that their products meet applicable standards. Pennsylvania has not formally approved the Third Restatement, but the judge in the Covells' trial instructed the jury according to the Third Restatement.
On appeal, the Covells argued that the judge should not have used the Third Restatement, since it has not been adopted in Pennsylvania, and that federal safety standards for bicycle helmets were in any case inadmissible. The Third Circuit disagreed on both counts. In 2009, the Third decided in Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing Inc. that Pennsylvania will eventually apply the Third Restatement, making that the correct standard. It declined to overturn that, dismissing an argument the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's dismissal of a relevant case means it does not intend to take up the Third Restatement. The Third then addressed the Covells' other argument, that federal bicycle helmet standards used at trial are not admissible because they are not described in the admissible portions of the Third Restatement. Again, it disagreed, saying that the federal standards described issues like testing and labels that are within the admitted part of the Third Restatement. Thus, it affirmed the district court's judgment and ended the Covells' case.
At oral arguments in this case, the Legal Intelligencer reported, Third Circuit judges acknowledged that the situation is not at all settled for Pennsylvanians involved in products liability cases. That's why, as a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I would be very interested in clear input from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to adopt or not adopt new standards, but the Third did it in Berrier because the state high court expressly declined to. Thus, it's possible that the court will ultimately come to the opposite conclusion, which would mean the Covells could have won their case if they had brought it later.
