![]() |
Legal News Supreme Court to Decide if PA Products Liability Law Should Follow Second Restatement of TortsPursuant to an order issued on March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court has ruled that it will hear appellate arguments on the issue of whether the analysis of the Restatement (Third) of Torts should replace the strict liability analysis of the Second Restatement. In the underlying case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, the defendant manufactured natural gas piping that was installed at the plaintiffs’ house. According to court papers, during the time at issue, the piping was damaged by lightning, which eventually caused the plaintiffs’ house to be damaged by fire. Following trial, the jury was instructed to follow the standard set forth in the Second Restatement and accordingly found in favor of the plaintiffs on a claim of strict liability. The defendant subsequently appealed and the Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err by following the Second Restatement. Thereafter, a petition for allowance of appeal was filed regarding the application of the Third Restatement. With regard to products liability law, The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Tincher appeal is particularly significant due to several previous predictions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the Court would adopt the Third Restatement as the applicable standard for addressing products liability. Such predictions notwithstanding, the Third Circuit has gone so far as to instruct the lower district courts to follow their precedent, given the lack of Supreme Court authority on the issue. |
Hickory Pointe 2250 Hickory Rd, Suite 300 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Phone: (610) 834-8800 Fax: (610) 834-1749 info@obrlaw.com |