;)
March 10th, 2025
In L.T. v. Kubota Mfg. of America Co., 2025 PA Super 33 (February 14, 2025), the Superior Court reversed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in the favor of the defendant concluding that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff’s expert report was not part of the record for summary judgment purposes.
L.T.’s grandmother was operating her Kubota BX2200 tractor mower in reverse when she inadvertently ran over 7-year-old, L.T., who had slipped on the grass behind but “next to” the tractor. L.T. ultimately required a below-knee amputation.
L.T. sued Kubota alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. After the close of discovery Kubota moved for summary judgment. Attached to the motion was the report of Jeffrey Ketchman, D.E.S., L.T.’s expert engineer (“Ketchman Report”). In his report, Dr. Ketchman cited many safety studies to support his contention that backward runover and blade laceration was known to be a common type of injury for children that led many mower manufacturers to utilize a no-mow-in-reverse (“NMIR”) feature and adding “graphic on[-]product warnings and instructions.” In fact, Kubota had also incorporated a NMIR feature on some of its tractors at the time it manufactured and sold the BX2200. Accordingly, Dr. Ketchman opined that the Kubota knew or should have known about the backover risk posed by the tractor in question, yet failed to design-out the hazard, adequately guard against it, and adequately warn about the hazard and its means of avoidance. As such, he concluded that the BX2200 was an unreasonably dangerous and defective product, and Kubota showed a wanton disregard for the safety of consumers and minor children by not incorporating the feasible safety features. Based on Dr. Ketchman extensive and detailed inspection and testing of the Kubota BX2200, Dr. Ketchman concluded that L.T. would not have sustained his injuries had Kubota incorporated the NMIR and other known safety features in the design of the BX2200.
In moving for summary judgment, Kubota contended that, despite Dr. Ketchman’s expert opinions, L.T. could not prevail on any of his claims as a matter of law because L.T. failed to establish that the BX2200 was defectively designed because the tractor operated exactly as an ordinary consumer would expect, the utility of the tractor outweighed the risk of the child backover danger, and L.T. did not prove that a safer alternative design would have prevented L.T.’s injuries. Specifically, Kubota’s engineering expert claimed that even with a NMIR feature, the blades of the BX2200 would have continued rotating for more than five feet while the tractor was in reverse, and L.T. would have sustained his injuries, nonetheless. Kubota also argued that Ketchman proffered no basis or foundation for the opinion that alternative designs, such as mirrors or a rear trailing shield, would have prevented L.T.’s injury. Kubota also argued it had no duty to warn of a generally known danger, that the warnings were adequate, and there was no causal connection between the lack of warnings and harm sustained by L.T.
L.T. disputed Kubota’s recitation of the factual record and applicable law and offered legal analysis supporting the viability of their claims. Following oral argument, the trial court granted Kubota’s motion, entering judgment as a matter of law in their favor and against L.T. In its accompanying opinion, the court initially indicated that it would not consider any of the evidence proffered by L.T. in opposing Kubota’s motion because the documents were attached to his brief in opposition to the motion, rather than to their response to the motion. The court also determined that, based upon this Court’s decision in Sullivan v. Werner Co., 253 A.3d 730 (Pa.Super. 2021), aff’d, 306 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023) (plurality), Kubota’s compliance, or lack thereof, with industry safety standards was irrelevant to its “analysis of material disputes of fact with respect to the products liability claims.” Ultimately, the court relied upon the opinions of Kubota’s expert, and the industry standards alleged by the defense to apply to the BX2200, to conclude that L.T.’s strict and negligent product liability claims failed as a matter of law.
L.T. filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider its ruling, citing the opinion in Monroe v. CBH20, LP, 286 A.3d 785, 802–03 (Pa.Super. 2022) (en banc), for the proposition that the exhibits attached to his brief, which was filed of record and incorporated by reference in their response to the summary judgment motion, were part of the record. The trial court denied L.T.’s motion and L.T. appealed the court’s decision.
The Superior Court determined that the trial court erred in determining what constituted the “record” for summary judgment purposes. Specifically, the PA Rules of Civil Procedure define “record” for purposes of summary judgment as: “(1) pleadings, (2) depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits, and (3) reports signed by an expert witness that would, if filed, comply with Rule 4003.5(a)(1), whether or not the reports have been produced in response to interrogatories.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.1 (emphasis added). According to the Monroe court: “The foregoing language suggests that expert reports need only be submitted, not filed, in order to be considered in ruling on the motion for summary judgment,” where, as here, the signed report contains “the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion” in conformity with Rule 4003.5(a)(1). See Monroe, 286 A.3d at 802. The Monroe Court further explained that when evidence had been attached to a brief that was filed of record with the prothonotary, it thereby became part of the record a court must consider before granting summary judgment.
Here, the Superior Court determined that Dr. Ketchman’s report was filed as an exhibit to Kubota’s motion for summary judgment, and as such the trial court erred in failing to consider it, as well as the other evidence that L.T. made part of the record by attaching to his filings in opposition to Kubota’s motion for summary judgment. The Court also concluded that the trial court invaded the province of the jury by deciding disputed facts in favor of Kubota rather than viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to L.T. Finally, the Superior Court determined that a verdict in favor of L.T. would be warranted if the facts and opinions contained in the Ketchman report were credited by the jury.
The Court’s opinion in L.T. v. Kubota Mfg. of America Co., 2025 PA Super 33 (February 14, 2025) can be accessed here.
