Pa. High Court Cleared Up a Big Strict Products Liability Law Question in 'Sullivan'
As a result of the court's ruling, defense attorneys will continue to be barred from introducing evidence of compliance with industry or government standards—not for lack of effort—and plaintiffs lawyers will be able to sharpen their arguments to focus on whether a product was defectively designed, without any fear of notions of "compliance" muddying the jury's focus at trial.
February 28, 2024 at 10:24 AM
8 minute read
Products LiabilityEver since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Tincher v. Omega in 2014—altering strict products liability law in Pennsylvania—there have been a number of lingering questions that practitioners and courts have been waiting to be answered. Chief among them: when the Tincher court overruled the court's 1978 decision in Azzarello v. Black Brothers, did it open the door to the admissibility of a manufacturer's alleged compliance with governmental and industry standards? Should a jury hear that evidence, and if so, how should they weigh it?
This content has been archived.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.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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