Defense Bar Releases Proposed Post-'Tincher' Jury Instructions
In response to perceived plaintiff-friendly jury instructions suggested in the wake of the state Supreme Court's landmark products liability ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute has released its own list of suggested jury instructions.
October 12, 2017 at 05:21 PM
2 minute read
Photo by Jason Doiy
In response to perceived plaintiff-friendly jury instructions suggested in the wake of the state Supreme Court's landmark products liability ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute has released its own list of suggested jury instructions.
The list appeared in the October issue of the PDI's newsletter, the Counterpoint Bulletin.
Over the summer of 2016, the civil instructions subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee for Proposed Standard Jury Instructions rolled out its first major overhaul of the suggested jury instructions for products liability cases in the wake of Tincher.
However, the defense bar and several manufacturing giants, including Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline, balked at the instructions, due in large part to the failure to include any mention that juries should consider whether the product was “unreasonably dangerous.”
The Pennsylvania Bar Institute published the committee's suggested jury instructions, which means judges will be far more likely to use that wording when instructing a jury. This led to the virtual certainty that defense attorneys would challenge the standard instructions at every opportunity.
In the Bulletin, the PDI cited the ruling in Rapchak v. Haldex Brake Products out of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In that case, Judge Terrence McVerry said the Tincher court “made clear that it is now up to the jury not the judge to determine whether a product is in a 'defective condition unreasonably dangerous' to the consumer.”
The PDI also pointed to the state Superior Court's 2015 decision in Amato v. Bell & Gossett. Although that decision also said that “the Tincher court concluded that generally, the question of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is one for the fact finder,” it further said the defendant was not prejudiced by the jury's failure to consider whether the product was “unreasonably dangerous,” because the defendant had argued that the product wasn't dangerous at all.
P.J. D'Annunzio can be contacted at 215-557-2315 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @PJDannunzioTLI.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readJudge Approves $1.15M Settlement, Reduces Attorney Award in COVID-19 Tuition Reimbursement Suit
4 minute readDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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