Judge Notes 'Considerable Confusion' in Post-'Tincher' Ruling
In ruling on a raft of motions in limine in a products liability suit, a Clarion County trial judge said "considerable confusion" has been created by the state Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, which said Pennsylvania would continue to follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
November 16, 2015 at 07:00 PM
5 minute read
Products Liability
In ruling on a raft of motions in limine in a products liability suit, a Clarion County trial judge said “considerable confusion” has been created by the state Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, which said Pennsylvania would continue to follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Clarion County Court of Common Pleas President Judge James G. Arner, in an opinion last month in Sliker v. National Feeding Systems, applied Tincher in allowing the defendants to present evidence of negligence and affirmative defenses of assumption of risk. He also pointed to the “significant uncertainty” created by Tincher's disavowal of the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling in Azzarello v. Black Brothers.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5'You Are Not Alone': 120 Sex Assault Victims Plan to Sue Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250