The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit against Porsche Cars North America, Inc. and its German parent company, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft, in a case involving alleged harm from engine coolant vapors.
Joseph Edward Riad filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2018, claiming he suffered personal injuries after inhaling vapors from his vehicle's engine cooling system. The Third Circuit issued its non-precedential opinion on Jan. 30, upholding the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
According to court documents, Riad purchased a used 2004 Porsche Cayenne Turbo in April 2011. The vehicle contained composite plastic pipes in its engine cooling system. The incident at the center of the lawsuit occurred in late November 2016, while Riad was driving from his Pennsylvania home to a Porsche dealership in Delaware.
During the trip, Riad's vehicle experienced a coolant leak. The court record indicates that after stopping the car and resuming his drive, smoke with an ammonia-like smell entered the vehicle's cabin through the air conditioning vents, causing Riad to feel ill. Following the incident, Riad contacted the Porsche dealership about the problem.
The case raised questions about product liability for foreign-manufactured vehicles and the responsibilities of exclusive importers for defects in automotive cooling systems. Riad's lawsuit targeted both the North American distributor and the German manufacturer, suggesting claims that the composite plastic pipes in the cooling system were defective or that adequate warnings about potential vapor inhalation risks were not provided.
District Judge Karen S. Marston granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Riad had failed to establish the necessary elements for his personal injury claims. The specific grounds for the district court's ruling were not detailed in the available portions of the Third Circuit's opinion.
On appeal, Circuit Judge Robert E. Phipps wrote the opinion for a three-judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Jane R. Roth and Marjorie O. Rendell. The appellate court applied de novo review to the district court's grant of summary judgment, meaning it reviewed the legal determinations independently without deference to the lower court's analysis.
The Third Circuit's affirmance suggests the appellate court agreed that Riad had not presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on his claims against the Porsche entities. In product liability cases involving foreign manufacturers and their U.S. distributors, plaintiffs typically must demonstrate that a defect in the product caused their injuries and that the defendants had sufficient involvement in the design, manufacture, or distribution of the allegedly defective component.
The opinion was designated as non-precedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases within the Third Circuit. This designation is common for routine appeals that do not establish new legal principles or resolve novel questions of law.
The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by consumers seeking to hold automotive manufacturers and distributors liable for alleged defects in vehicle systems. Product liability claims against car manufacturers often involve complex questions about causation, the adequacy of warnings, and the scope of duties owed by different entities in the manufacturing and distribution chain.
For Riad, the affirmance represents the end of his federal court litigation unless he seeks review by the Supreme Court, which rarely accepts such cases. The timeline of the case, spanning from the 2016 incident through the 2026 appellate decision, illustrates the lengthy process often involved in product liability litigation.
The ruling also reflects the challenges plaintiffs face in automotive defect cases, particularly when dealing with used vehicles where questions may arise about the condition of components and whether any problems resulted from wear, maintenance issues, or original manufacturing defects.
While the Third Circuit's opinion does not establish new precedent, it adds to the body of decisions involving automotive product liability claims and may influence how similar cases are approached in federal courts within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.
The case was submitted to the Third Circuit panel under Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a) in November 2025, indicating it was considered suitable for resolution without oral argument based on the briefs and record materials alone.