Jeffrey Laffey

In a recent article in The Legal Intelligencer, Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan founder Jeffrey Laffey explored the ramifications of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Sullivan v. Werner decision. Laffey, who, along with attorney Stewart Ryan represented the plaintiffs in the case, explained that the Court has answered a major open question in products liability law by affirming that a manufacturer’s alleged compliance with governmental and industry standards is not admissible.

In 2014, the Court’s Tincher v. Omega decision outlined the risk-utility test, which can determine if a product is unreasonably dangerous and defective. This test examines whether a reasonable person would conclude that the probability of harm caused by the product outweighs the burden or cost of taking precautions. The decision has led some manufacturers to attempt to introduce evidence of compliance with government and industry standards.

In the Sullivan case, union carpenter Michael Sullivan suffered career-ending injuries when a platform of a scaffold collapsed, causing him to fall. Evidence established that the deck pins that help secure the platform rotate to a degree where the platform can become partially dislodged. Although Werner, the manufacturer, attempted to introduce evidence of compliance with standards set forth by an entity funded by the American Ladder Institute, this evidence was not admitted, and Sullivan was awarded $2.5 million.

Laffey highlights the implications of the case: “What the Sullivan decision does is sharpen the focus for plaintiffs and defense counsel alike when handling products liability cases. Rather than be distracted by side arguments…practitioners can hone on a very straight-forward question: was the product in question defectively designed?”

Read the full article here: Pa. High Court Cleared Up a Big Strict Products Liability Law Question in ‘Sullivan’ (subscription required)

In a recent article in The Legal Intelligencer, Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan founder Jeffrey Laffey and partner Stewart Ryan discussed the implications of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to affirm their client’s $2.5 million award in the case Sullivan v. Werner Company. The Court determined that defendants cannot introduce evidence showing their product complies with industry standards, finding that their 2014 ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex did not change the way courts must handle such evidence.

Laffey and Ryan’s client, Michael Sullivan, fell when the platform he was standing upon collapsed, and he alleged that the scaffold was negligently designed. The defendants in the case, Werner Co. and Lowe’s Cos., sought to bring in evidence that the product met federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and American National Standards Institute standards.

Although Tincher had left some doubt as to the admissibility of a manufacturer’s alleged compliance with standard industry protocols, the Court’s majority decision affirms that this evidence should be barred.

“Everybody’s imagination ran amok with what Tincher meant for the past nine years,” Laffey said. “It solidifies Pennsylvania as a Second Restatement state, which Tincher expressly stated that it was.”

Under the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A, “one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer” may be held strictly liable to the injured party, even if “the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product.”

Tincher established that there are two tests—risk-utility and consumer expectation—under which plaintiffs can now present product liability cases, but there is still a severe separation between negligence and strict liability. Ryan noted that this appeal offers insight into the justices’ view of the post-Tincher landscape, saying, “They’re seeing the reality that the only thing Tincher may do here is change the lens by which juries can determine product liability. All of these various sub issues the defense bar is saying no longer matter. The court said we’re still a Restatement (Second) state.”

Read the full article here: Industry Standards Evidence Inadmissible Following ‘Tincher,’ Pa. Supreme Court Says (subscription required)

In a recent article in Forbes, Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan founders Jeffrey Laffey and Paul Bucci discussed the firm’s focus on pursuing justice for victims of workplace accidents and crimes, specifically those who have survived sexual abuse or assault.

“Our clients are often in extremely vulnerable positions,” said Bucci. “Our goal is to help them move forward with their lives.”

Laffey is the son of a union carpenter and uses the power of the law on behalf of working people, obtaining numerous seven- and eight-figure results for clients. One of these victories includes a $15 million recovery for a refinery worker who fell in excess of 15 feet due to an unsafe access ladder. “I love being the blue-collar guy getting white-collar results for my clients,” Laffey said.

Bucci is also committed to fighting for working people; he secured the largest construction accident settlement in U.S. history as a lead attorney in the 2003 parking garage collapse at Tropicana Atlantic City.

“The magnitude of that case was profound, but it’s no less profound for a family whose father or husband was in a single job-site accident,” said Bucci. “We bring the same strength and compassion to any size of workplace case.”

That ethos of compassionate advocacy informs the entirety of the firm’s work on behalf of clients. “We take a lot of pride in being able to substantially alter our clients’ lives for the better,” said Laffey.

Read the full article here: Fighting the Good Fight