Back in 2020, we encountered Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., 2020 Pa. Super. Lexis 843 (Pa. Super. Sept. 20, 2020), a decision so bizarre that it reminded us of a Monty Python movie. That decision “employ[ed] a rationale, at once both paleolithically conservative and pro-plaintiffly radical, that would render any federal “tort reform” statute unconstitutional.” Gustafson involved a federal statute that preempted most tort litigation involving firearms, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, 15 U.S.C. §§7901, et seq., (“PLCAA”), and declared that the PLCAA violated the Tenth Amendment.
Since it did not involve prescription medical product liability litigation, the Blog did not follow Gustafson all that closely – our last mention of it was in 2021, noting that en banc reargument had been granted and the singular panel opinion had been withdrawn. However, the decision that resulted from the reargument was a mess. Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., 282 A.3d 739 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc), produced no majority and five different opinions from the nine judges. Moreover, the overall result, which was to reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the suit, was contrary to the majority votes of the individual judges. How could that be? Here’s a brief description from a Pennsylvania appellate procedure article Bexis wrote about Gustafson:
The outcome in Gustafson thus differed dramatically from the votes of the nine en banc judges on the merits of the two issues. The outcome was 5-4 in favor of reversal, as four judges would reverse on constitutional grounds, and one judge would reverse solely on statutory grounds. On both of the two issues, however, the position advocated by the defendants was in the majority. Seven justices agreed that, factually, the Arms Act was applicable to the Gustafson plaintiffs’ claims. By a slimmer margin of 5-4, a majority of the Gustafson judges agreed that the Arms Act was constitutional.
J. Beck, “What Happens When Precedent Splinters? A Look at Gustafson,” Law.com (Nov. 17, 2022).
This bizarre result had one beneficial effect, it virtually forced the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to take the inevitable appeal in order to clean up the mess. Which it did. See Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., 296 A.3d 560 (Pa. 2023) (granting review).
And last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did indeed clean up the mess. See Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., 2025 Pa. Lexis 442 (Pa. March 31, 2025).
Continue Reading At Least Pennsylvania Is Not That Completely Different