Galfand Berger's client, L.T., was 7 years old when the blades of a riding lawnmower operated by his grandmother amputated his left lower leg. L.T. was a victim of the child backover hazard. The child backover hazard occurs when the operator of a riding lawnmower mows the grass in reverse without realizing that a child has come into the mower's path. Tragically, thousands of children have been killed or maimed by riding lawnmowers mowing in reverse. This specific hazard to children has been known to the outdoor power equipment industry since the 1960s. In 1993, the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that 340 children every year were being injured or killed by the blades of riding mowers moving in reverse.
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 21, 2025 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- In response to how common such injuries were, many mower manufacturers began implementing safety devices to protect bystander children from riding lawnmowers in reverse. The riding mower that amputated L.T.'s leg was manufactured in 2001. It did not have any of the safety devices designed to protect against the child backover hazard, even though that same year, the very same manufacturer sold a substantially similar riding mower that did have safety devices to prevent operators from mowing in reverse.
As part of L.T.'s case, an expert engineer who has testified in child backover cases across the country wrote a report explaining that the lawnmower that amputated L.T.'s leg lacked a no-mow-in-reverse safety feature, rearview mirrors, and adequate guarding of the blades. As a result, the mower was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
After extensive discovery, the defendant manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to toss out the lawsuit filed by L.T. and his mother. Galfand Berger opposed the motion and pointed to the expert engineer's opinion, the manufacturer's own literature and its employees' testimony, and their client's testimony as evidence that entitled L.T. to a jury trial. After wrongly determining it could not consider the plaintiffs' expert liability report, the trial court unfortunately granted the manufacturer's motion and dismissed the case. Galfand Berger appealed on behalf of their clients, L.T. and his mother.
In L.T. v. Kubota Manufacturing of America Corporation (Case No. 1310 MDA 2023), the Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision and ruled in favor of Galfand Berger's clients. This victory will allow the case to proceed to trial and give L.T. his day in court. The case will also benefit plaintiffs in product liability actions across the Commonwealth when faced with similar motions to dismiss their cases.
First, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court was wrong to disregard the report of the plaintiffs' expert engineer. The trial court had stated it could not consider the plaintiffs' engineer because the report was attached to the plaintiffs' brief opposing summary judgment rather than the plaintiffs' motion response. The Superior Court adopted Galfand Berger's argument and held that the trial court erred on this point because the plaintiffs had properly filed their expert engineer report in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.1, which required the trial court to consider it part of the record, regardless of how it was attached. The Superior Court's decision on this point is important to all plaintiffs in Pennsylvania to ensure trial courts properly consider all the evidence plaintiffs submit.
The Superior Court then addressed whether the expert engineer report and other evidence cited by the plaintiffs sufficiently made a case that the lawnmower was defective and that the defendants had been negligent. Again, the Superior Court sided with L.T. and Galfand Berger.
Examining all of the evidence, the Superior Court found that the expert engineer's report submitted by Galfand Berger set forth several ways that a jury could find the lawnmower to be defective. The Superior Court criticized the trial court for dismissing the plaintiffs' engineer and crediting the defendant's engineer. This violated the fundamental standard of review at the summary judgment stage. The Superior Court's decision applied the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent decision in Sullivan v. Werner Co. to identify the relevant factors to consider when determining a product defect. The Court's decision in L.T. provides a guide to plaintiffs in Pennsylvania on how to demonstrate a product is defective.
L.T. v. Kubota Manufacturing of America Corporation marks the sixth appellate case handled by Galfand Berger attorneys since 2020. Five of those appellate decisions resulted in unanimous decisions in favor of Galfand Berger's clients, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc., 242 A.3d 637 (Pa. 2020).
Galfand Berger is a premier personal injury law firm that has been serving injured workers, consumers, and individuals since 1947. For more information or to schedule a free consultation, call 800-222-USWA (8792) or visit www.galfandberger.com. With offices in Philadelphia, Bethlehem, Lancaster, and Reading, Pennsylvania, Galfand Berger serves clients across Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Media Contact
Wayne Hamilton, Galfand Berger, 1 800-222-8792, [email protected], https://www.galfandberger.com/
SOURCE Galfand Berger
Share this article