In Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 55 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2012), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed for the first time the existence and nature of a “highly reckless conduct” defense to products liability actions. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries he had sustained when a hunting platform he was installing on a tree collapsed and he fell. Plaintiff received a directed verdict that the defendants’ product was defective, but the trial court permitted defendants to adduce, in rebuttal to plaintiff’s causation evidence, evidence that plaintiff’s conduct in setting up the stand had been reckless. The jury ruled for defendants on the basis of this rebuttal evidence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that the “highly reckless conduct” defense is an affirmative defense and defendants had the burden of proof to establish that the supposed reckless conduct was “the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” The court reviewed the record and concluded that the defendants had failed to meet their burden, and consequently remanded the case for a new trial limited to the question of damages suffered by the plaintiff.