In a June 16 per curiam opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that it had improvidently granted an appeal in the matter Bugosh v. I.U. North America Inc. The court’s opinion in this case was closely watched by practitioners of products liability law, as the issue before the court was whether Pennsylvania was to join the growing number of states that have adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts .
I was particularly interested in the outcome of this case. My article titled “After Berrier and Bugosh , Focus Will Remain on the Product,” went to press before the decision in Bugosh was issued. In that article, published June 22 in The Legal , I argued that whether the court affirmed existing precedent, and the applicability of the Restatement (Second) of Torts , or adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts the main inquiry in any products liability case would remain squarely on the product itself, rather than on the conduct of the parties. This piece is a short follow-up.
This content has been archived.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
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]
