According to the game-changing products liability case Tincher v. Omega-Flex, plaintiffs are the “master” of their case, but that doesn’t mean judges should be barred from instructing juries on both the consumer expectation and risk-utility tests, even when the plaintiff has only pursued one of those theories of liability, a Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled.

A three-judge Superior Court panel ruled in Davis v. Volkswagen that the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas did not err when it instructed juries on both theories of liability that the state Supreme Court established in Tincher, even though the plaintiff only litigated her case under the consumer expectation test. The ruling leaves in place a defense verdict in the crashworthiness case.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]