Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Address Proper Restatement Analysis for Products Liability Cases

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted an appeal in the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, No. 842 MAL 2012 (Pa. March 26, 2013) to specifically address the issue of whether the Restatement (Second) or the Restatement (Third) standards govern Pennsylvania products liability cases.  Click this LINK to view the Order.

In its Order accepting the appeal, the Court wrote, in pertinent part, as follows:

"AND NOW, this 26th day of March 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. . . .

The issue, slightly rephrased, is:

Whether this Court should replace the strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement with the analysis of the Third Restatement.

In addition, the parties are directed to brief the question of whether, if the Court were to adopt the Third Restatement, that holding should be applied prospectively or retroactively."

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith and the great Drug and Device Law Blog for this tip.  I also thank Attorney Kenneth T. Newman of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, and Attorney Francis P. Burns III of the Philadelphia law firm of Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DeSipio for sending this my way too.