In the most ironic of ironies, Pennsylvania products liability law is defective and malfunctioning itself given the confusion in the federal courts over whether the Restatement (Second) of Torts or the different analysis set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Torts should be utilized in such cases. This uncertainty is the cause of an ever-growing split of authority not only between the Pennsylvania state and federal courts, but also amongst, and even within, the different federal district court branches across the state.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself recently noted that this area of the law is in a "continuing state of disrepair." (See Beard v. Johnson & Johnson, 41 A.3d 823, 836 (Pa. 2012).) The situation has now spiraled downward to the point that litigants with cases pending in the Pennsylvania federal court system have to research whether the particular federal district court judge presiding over the case has previously issued a decision on the issue in order to determine which Restatement standard will be applied in any given case.
