According to an October 15, 2013 article by Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer (what a great name for a reporter), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex on October 15th. The central issue presented in this case is whether the "strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement should be replaced by the Restatement (Third) of Torts analysis, and whether the Court's holding should be applied prospectively or retroactively."
It should be interesting to see how this one plays out. For more information on this issue, Here is a LINK to my recent article published in the Westlaw Journal: Automotive outlining the current status (as of January, 2013) of the split of authority amongst the Pennsylvania courts on the issue of whether products liability cases should be governed by the Restatement (Second) analysis or the Restatement (Third) analysis.
Click HERE to review the Tort Talk "Products Liability Restatement Scorecard," which outlines a number of recent cases on the debate over whether the Restatement (Second) or (Third) should be utilized in Pennsylvania strict liability matters. Note that that page can always be viewed by going to Tort Talk and scrolling down the right hand column and clicking on "Products Liability Restatement Scorecard."
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Update on Products Liability Restatement (Second) vs. (Third) Dispute
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.