Stewart Ryan

This week, yet another Parkland School District teacher was arrested, this time for secretly recording a student in a dressing room. This was not the first complaint made against the teacher. NBC 10 interviewed Attorney Stewart Ryan who represents five students accusing another Parkland teacher, Christian Willman, of sexually abusing them. The lawsuit alleged that Parkland failed to protect its students from abusive teachers.

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)

Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan represents a woman alleging that she was sexually assaulted at a Massage Envy location in Short Pump, Virginia. CBS 6 Problem Solvers recently interviewed Stewart Ryan and the firm’s client for an investigative report on sexual abuse at the massage franchise and how state regulators address the issue.

Ryan called the issue an epidemic and believes Massage Envy must work harder to protect its customers. “It doesn’t appear that anything is being done, the fact that sexual assault continues to occur evidences that nothing is being done, or the right things aren’t being done.”

Watch the full interviews here.