& Johnson Products, Inc., 523 Pa. 176, 565 A.2d 751, 754 (1989) (citations omitted). In Barnish v. KWI Bld. Co., 602 Pa. 402, 980 A.2d 535 (2009), our Supreme Court engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the malfunction theory: [A] plaintiff pursuing a case under the malfunction theory can assert a successful strict product liability claim based purely on circumstantial evidence in cases where the allegedly defective product has been destroyed or is otherwise unavailable. Although the plaintiff does not have to specify the defect in the product, the plaintiff nonetheless must present evidence from which a jury can infer the elements of a strict liability action, beyond mere speculation. Id. at 539. See Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Sharp Electronics, 2011 WL 2632880 (M.D.Pa.) at *3 (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court in Banish explained how the
recognizing theory of constructive possession recognizing viability of malfunction theory in pennsylvania holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case recognizing theory of waiver in physicianpatient relationship recognizing that viability steadily moves back towards conception