In its recent decision in the case of
Martinez v. American Honda Motor, No. 445 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. April
19, 2017 Bender, P.J.E., Dubow, J., Musmanno, J.)(mem. op. by Dubow, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Plaintiff’s verdict against
Honda Motors in a case that addresses the current status of the Pennsylvania
products liability law in the Post-
Tincher era.
Unfortunately, the decision in this unchartered area of strict products liability law is inexplicably listed as "non-precedential."
One of the issues addressed by the Superior Court was
whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in
Tincher overruled
long-standing precedential decisions which barred evidence of compliance with
federal and regulatory standards in products liability cases.
The court in this case of
Martinez ruled that the
Tincher decision
did not overrule prior cases in this regard.
As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s
decision that such proposed evidence was inadmissible.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this
LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic,
Pennsylvania law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, as well as Attorney
Bruce Zero of the Scranton, Pennsylvania office of Powell Law, for bringing
this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.