Supreme Court to Decide Post-Tincher Issue of Whether "Unreasonably Dangerous" Standard Applies in Failure-To-Warn Cases

In an Order hnaded down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dated February 1, 2016 in the case of Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience Inc., 447 EAL 2015 (Pa. Feb. 1, 2016), the Court agreed to address the following Post-Tincher issue in products liability cases:

"Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), a defendant in a strict-liability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”

A copy of the Supreme Court's Order can be viewed HERE.

See also Amato v. Bell & Gosset, Clark-Reliance Corp., No. 448 EAL 2015, 2016 WL 381069 (Pa. Feb. 1, 2016) HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this Order to my attention.  Check out Attorney Beck's excellent Drug and Device Law Blog HERE.