Who Can Be Sued for Injuries from a Defective Product?

March 25, 2025

Despite advances in technology and testing, millions are injured by consumer products each year, with thousands of those injuries caused by defective designs or manufacturing flaws. A severe injury can instantly derail a life, turning carefree days into a struggle against pain and uncertainty. Families are often left shouldering a heavy burden: crushing medical expenses, lost wages, and the relentless demands of caring for a loved one. For over fifty years, however, Pennsylvania law has recognized that this burden shouldn’t be theirs alone.

Pennsylvania law, through the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, has held sellers strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products since 1966. This means they’re responsible even if they’ve exercised “all possible care.” The rationale: sellers are in a better position to ensure product safety and absorb the costs of injuries their products cause.

So, who is a “seller,” you ask? It may be more than you’d expect. Section 402A broadly defines “seller” to include any person engaged in the business of selling products for use and consumption, encompassing manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. Under Pennsylvania law, any seller in the chain of distribution that sells the defective product is liable for the injuries that product causes. (See Bialek v. Pittsburgh Brewing Co., 242 A.2d 231, 236 (Pa. 1968)).

However, as clear as that may sound, real-world complexities can create confusion. For example, commercial lessors are generally considered sellers. (See Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp., 372 A.2d 736 (Pa. 1977)). However, if they’re simply providing financing, not marketing or distributing the product, they may not be subject to § 402A strict liability. Id.

Pennsylvania courts consider four key public policy factors when determining if someone qualifies as a “seller” for strict product liability:

Is the defendant the only available party in the marketing chain from which the injured plaintiff can seek redress?
Will strict liability incentivize safer practices?
Is the defendant better positioned to prevent defective products from entering the market? and
Can the defendant spread the cost of injuries by adjusting prices? (See Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., 562 A.2d 279, 282 (Pa. 1989)).

In a recent application of these factors, a Third Circuit Court panel classified Amazon as a “seller” under § 402A. However, the Third Circuit later vacated that decision, choosing, rather, to certify the question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide if an e-commerce business is strictly liable for a defective product. (Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 930 F.3d 136, 144–150 (3d Cir. 2019), vacated, 936 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2019)).

Unfortunately, the case settled before Pennsylvania’s high court issued a ruling, leaving uncertainty as to whether big players like Amazon could be held strictly liable in Pennsylvania for a defective product sold by a third-party.

Navigating the complexities of product liability law, especially when multiple “sellers” might be involved, requires a deep understanding of Pennsylvania’s legal landscape. If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective product, securing experienced legal representation is crucial to holding all responsible parties accountable. Our team possesses the knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate your products liability case, identify all potential avenues for recovery, and fight for the compensation you deserve.