Country Squire Deli Inc. v. Maximum Security Alarms Inc.

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 50 Pa. D. & C.3d 420; 1988
Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 300
February 8, 1988, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: Motion for judgment on the pleadings.
DISPOSITION: Motion denied.
CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff property owner filed suit against defendant
installer to recover damages for the defective installation of a burglar
alarm system. The installer joined the manufacturer of the alarm as an
additional defendant, and the manufacturer filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

OVERVIEW: The installer put in a burglar alarm system at the owner's
business premises pursuant to a contract. The owner's premises were
subsequently burglarized, at which time the alarm system allegedly
malfunctioned, failing to sound an alarm. The owner filed a negligence suit
against the installer, and the installed joined the manufacturer for
purposes of indemnity and contribution. The manufacturer sought a judgment
on the pleadings on the ground that the alleged negligent manufacturing of
the alarm system was not the proximate cause of damages and that the
burglary of the owner's premises acted as a superseding cause, breaking the
chain of proximate causation and thereby relieving the manufacturer of any
liability. The court held that the manufacturer was not entitled to judgment
on the pleadings because it was a reasonable allegation that the defective
manufacture of the burglar alarm system increased the likelihood of
successful burglaries. Thus, it could be established at trial that the
burglary was not a superseding cause of damages and that the chain of
proximate causation was still intact.
OUTCOME: The court denied the manufacturer's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

COUNSEL: H. Alan Vican, for plaintiff.
Peter J. Quigley, for defendant.
Joel H. Ziev, for additional defendant.
JUDGES: O'BRIEN, J.
OPINIONBY: O'BRIEN
OPINION: [*421] Maximum Security Alarms Inc. installed a burglar alarm
system at the business premises of plaintiff pursuant to a contract dated
July 31, 1981. On or about March 19, 1983, plaintiff's premises was
burglarized, at which time the alarm system allegedly malfunctioned, failing
to sound an alarm. On April 4, 1986, Country Squire Deli Inc. filed suit
against Maximum Security Alarms Inc. alleging the defective installation of
a burglar alarm system. On April 29, 1986, Maximum Security joined Alarm
Device Manufacturing Company (ADEMCO), the manufacturer of the alarm, as an
additional defendant for purposes of indemnity and/or contribution. ADEMCO
has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which following briefs and
argument is now before the court for disposition.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted only where the facts
are not at issue and the law is so clear that a trial would be a fruitless
exercise. Beardell v. Western Wayne School District, 91 Pa. Commw. 348, 496
A.2d 1373 (1985). [**2] All well-pleaded allegations of the party opposing
the motion must be taken as true, while only those facts specifically
admitted by the opposing party may be considered against him. Singer v.
School District of Philadelphia, 99 Pa. Commw. 553, 513 A.2d 1108 (1986).
Unless it is clear on the face of the pleadings [*422] that the law will
not permit recovery, the motion will be denied. Merritt v. Board of
Education. Philadelphia School District, 99 Pa. Commw. 178. 513 A.2d 504
(1986). The pleadings clearly set forth allegations that a burglary occurred
at plaintiff's premises, the alarm system malfunctioned, and ADEMCO
manufactured the alarm.

The issue presented by ADEMCO's motion is whether the alleged negligent
manufacturing of an alarm system can be the proximate cause of damages or
whether a burglary of plaintiff's premises acted as a superseding cause
breaking the chain of proximate causation therefore relieving ADEMCO of any
liability.

To answer this issue we must interpret Pennsylvania law as viewed within a
developmental context. In Nirdlinger v. American District Telegraph Co., 245
Pa. 453, 91 A. 883 (1914), [**3] our Supreme Court held that defendant
company which had installed a burglar alarm system in plaintiff's home but
had negligently failed to properly reset the alarm after it had been
temporarily turned off, was not liable in trespass for the loss sustained by
plaintiff from a burglary occurring thereafter. The court found that the
chain of causation between defendant's negligence and the loss sustained by
plaintiff had been broken by the burglary. Since Nirdlinger, however, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted those sections of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts dealing with proximate cause. See Hamil v. Bashline, 481
Pa. 256, 392 A.2d 1280 (1978); Ford v. Jeffries, 474 Pa. 588, 379 A.2d 111
(1977): Whitner v. Von Hintz, 437 Pa. 448, 263 A.2d 889 (1970). Specifically
section 448 provides as follows:

"The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a
superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the
actor's [*423] negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an
opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the
actor at the time of his negligent [**4] conduct realized or should have
realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a
third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or
crime." (emphasis supplied)

According to recent Pennsylvania case law and the Restatement, liability
revolves upon a concept of reasonable foreseeability that an intentional
tort or crime may be committed by a third person as a result of the actor's
negligent actions. In Douglas W. Randall Inc. v. AFA Protective Systems, 516
F. Supp. 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1981) affirmed 688 F.2d 820 (3d Cir. 1982) the
district court, applying Pennsylvania law, held that a defendant installer
of a burglar alarm was liable to a plaintiff whose home was burglarized when
the alarm did not give adequate warning. Proximate cause was found to exist
since defendant should have realized that as a result of improper adjustment
of the alarm system to a point where it could not pick up anything, it was
likely that a successful burglary could have occurred. Similarly, in the
instant case, it is a reasonable allegation that the defective manufacture
of a burglar alarm system increases the likelihood of successful [**5]
burglaries. Thus it may be established at trial that the burglary was not a
superseding cause and the chain of proximate causation is still intact.

ADEMCO's reliance on Manix v. Commonwealth Security Systems Inc., 43 Pa. D.
& C.3d 587, 70 Lancaster L. Rev. 328 (1986) is misplaced. In Manix,
plaintiffs sued defendant installer of a burglar alarm system for losses
resulting from a burglary. The court although finding defendant liable
limited the amount of plaintiff's recovery to fees and costs as was
expressly set forth [*424] in the contract between the parties. Such
limitation of damage clauses are enforceable in Pennsylvania. See Lobianco
v. Property Protection Inc., 292 Pa. Super. 346, 437 A.2d 417 (1981). In the
case at bar, the existence of a limitation of damages clause has not been
averred. Furthermore, with regard to the issue of proximate cause, the Manix
court analysis would support our conclusion. See Manix v. Commonwealth
Security Systems Inc. 43 Pa. D. & C.3d 587, 70 Lancaster L. Rev. 328 at 331.

ORDER

And now, February 8, 1988, the motion of additional defendant Alarm Device
Manufacturing Company for [**6] judgment on the pleadings is denied.