The only remaining defendant at this juncture is the manufacturer of the factory's spark detection system, which plaintiffs allege malfunctioned when it failed to activate as intended, precipitating the catastrophe.The trial court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer of the spark detection system, and the Superior Court affirmed.Plaintiffs settled their claims against all the defendants other than Manufacturer.
Although many courts applying the malfunction theory under Pennsylvania law have cited to the lead opinion in Kuisis v.
Apparently, employees of the plant extinguished several areas of smoldering material inside the plant.
Nonetheless, hours later, several of API's plant employees saw a glowing ember the size of a small football on the conveyor.
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 319 A.2d 914 (Pa.1974), as a primary authority for Pennsylvania law on the malfunction theory, we note that that decision was a non-precedential, plurality opinion.
This Court, however, did adopt the malfunction theory in Rogers v.Your access to the NCBI website at gov has been temporarily blocked due to a possible misuse/abuse situation involving your site.