Kia automobile owners filed a product liability suit against Kia Corp. and related entities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania state court alleging that a defective design of the front passenger seat frame caused a paralyzing injury during a rear-end collision.[i]

Allegations

According to the April 2025 Complaint, plaintiff Hank Schmoyer purchased a 2022 Kia Sorento from Allentown Kia on February 22, 2022.[ii] On April 29, 2023, while Hank Schmoyer was driving the vehicle with Donna Schmoyer sitting in the front passenger seat, Adrian Zimmerman drove a pick-up truck, owned by Jerry Martin, that rear-ended Mr. Schmoyer’s Kia on Route 222 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.[iii] The collision caused the front passenger seat frame and associated structures to fail, leading to severe injuries to Donna Schmoyer, including spinal cord injuries and paralysis.[iv] The vehicle also experienced significant trunk intrusion, reducing the occupant survival space and contributing to the injuries.[v]

Due to the incident, plaintiffs filed suit against the Kia Corp., several of its related entities (collectively “Kia”), and the owner and operator of the truck which rear-ended the Mr. Schmoyer’s vehicle. The plaintiffs made claims of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty against Kia. The plaintiffs assert Kia is strictly liable based on the design, manufacture, marketing, distributing and for selling the vehicle.[vi] Specific defects include inadequate strength of the seatback structure, seat frame, and seat cushion, as well as failure to withstand forces from foreseeable rear-end accidents.[vii] Addressing negligence, the Schmoyers accuse the Kia defendants of negligence in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and for selling the vehicle without adequate safety measures.[viii] The plaintiffs’ allegations include failure to perform adequate testing, failure to adhere to safety standards, and failure to provide adequate warnings.[ix] The plaintiffs also assert that the defendants knew or should have known about the risks posed by the vehicle’s defects.[x] Plaintiffs claim breach of express warranty, asserting that the vehicle did not conform to the safety representations made in the owner’s manual.[xi] They also allege breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, arguing that the vehicle was not safe for ordinary use or passenger transportation.[xii]

Finally, the plaintiffs allege that both Jerry Martin and Adrian Zimmerman were negligent. They assert that Jerry Martin negligently entrusted the striking pick-up truck to Adrian Zimmerman, who also was allegedly incompetent to operate it safely.[xiii] They also claim that Martin is vicariously liable for Zimmerman’s negligent actions during the accident.[xiv]

The Potential Impact of Recent Caselaw

The Schmoyer case will likely involve recent Pennsylvania law that undercuts a defendant’s ability to defend product liability suits. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Sullivan v. Werner Co., 306 A.3d 846 (2023) that a product manufacturer cannot invoke compliance with either industry or government regulations or standards as a defense in a design defect, strict liability suit that assesses the risk-utility of the product.[xv] This ruling placed the Commonwealth in the minority regarding the admissibility of compliance evidence.[xvi]

Additionally, Pennsylvania appellate courts have issued decisions expanding a manufacturer’s potential exposure by limiting the application of several liability for damages. In Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., 226 A.3d 526 (2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the application of several liability per Pennsylvania’s 2011 Fair Share Act[xvii] did not apply to strictly liable tortfeasors.[xviii] Moreover, in Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021), a ruling which further restricts the scope of several liability, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the Fair Share Act applies only in cases where a plaintiff’s comparative negligence is at issue and does not apply in purely strict liability actions.[xix]

Takeaways

These appellate decisions limit a manufacturer’s ability to mount a defense to product liability actions by demonstrating corporate responsibility and reasonableness in submitting to, and complying with, industry and governmental standards. At the same time, manufacturers may face excessive damages awards with the evisceration of several liability and by having to assume the apportioned liability of other more negligent actors, such as the owner/operator in the Schmoyer case. Nonetheless, defendants can assemble a defense by continuing to address common sense, personalizing the corporate defendant, and attempting to present a theme that allows a jury to understand and care about both parties’ perspectives.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

More by this author

Misclassification Under the FLSA May Expose Employers to Expanded Liability Pennsylvania Legislature Considers Law to Permit Specification, and Anchoring, of Noneconomic Damages Figures by Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in Civil Jury Trials Misclassification Under the FLSA May Expose Employers to Expanded Liability Recent Philadelphia Product Liability Suit Underscores Challenging Legal Climate for Manufacturers in Pennsylvania Collaboration Is Key to Preparation in the Weeks Before Trial Philadelphia County Continues Trend of Large Verdicts to Sympathetic Plaintiffs in Recent Medical Malpractice Litigation Pennsylvania Abuse Settlement Reinforces Importance of Background Checks in Business Operation Immunizing Against Wrongful Termination Claims: How Pennsylvania Employers Can Avoid Costly Claims by At-Will Employees Kicked Off the Team: College Football Doctor Wins Big in Wrongful Termination Case

Sources

[i] Schmoyer v. Kia Corp., Civ. Action No. 250400457 (Com. Pleas Phila.) (“Schomyer Compl.”).

[ii] See Schmoyer Compl., at ¶¶ 1, 28.

[iii] Id., at ¶¶ 29-33.

[iv] Id., at ¶¶ 34-36.

[v] Id., at ¶ 35.

[vi] Id., at ¶¶ 38-40, 53.

[vii] Id., at ¶ 41.

[viii] Id., at ¶ 56.

[ix] Id.

[x] Id., at ¶ 57.

[xi] Id., at ¶¶ 60-62.

[xii] Id., at ¶¶ 68-69, 72-75.

[xiii] Id., at ¶¶ 88-91.

[xiv] Id., at ¶¶ 82-83.

[xv] See 306 A.3d 846, 861 (Pa. 2023) (stating that “evidence of a product’s compliance with governmental regulations or industry standards is inadmissible in design defect cases to show a product is not defective under the risk-utility theory.”).

[xvi] Id., 306 A.3d at 863.

[xvii] Replacing the state’s Comparative Negligence Act, Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act established that a defendant’s liability is several and a defendant is generally only responsible to pay for that percentage of the verdict that a jury assessed to that defendant. 42 Pa. C.S. 7102(a.1)(2).

[xviii] Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., 657 Pa. 484, 513, 226 A.3d 526, 543 (2020) (stating “the plain language of the Fair Share Act indicates that liability is apportioned equally among strictly liable joint tortfeasors”).

[xix] 249 A.3d 529, 559 (Pa. Super. 2021).