429 Pa. 626, 241 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1968)
Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.
Does Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A impose strict products liability on a builder-vendor for design or construction defects in a newly sold dwelling by treating the home as a "product"?
Under Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to strict liability for resulting physical harm if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. In Pennsylvania, §402A applies to products (i.e., movable goods) placed in the stream of commerce, but it does not extend to the sale of real property or dwellings treated as products; claims arising from alleged defects in homes must proceed, if at all, under negligence or appropriate warranty theories rather than strict products liability.
No. A dwelling is not a "product" for purposes of §402A, and strict products liability does not apply to a builder-vendor's sale of a residence.
Cheney is a foundational Pennsylvania case delineating the scope of §402A and the boundary between products liability and real property/construction disputes. It confirms that, in Pennsylvania, homes are not treated as "products" for strict liability, steering construction-defect litigation toward negligence and warranty frameworks. The case also sets the doctrinal stage for Elderkin v. Gaster (1972), where the court recognized an implied warranty of habitability for new homes sold by builder-vendors—addressing buyer protection needs without expanding §402A to real property. For students, Cheney is critical to understanding policy limits of strict liability, the chattel/realty distinction, and how courts calibrate remedies across overlapping tort and contract domains.