Pennsylvania courts prohibit the introduction of negligence concepts in the trial of a strict-liability products case. This prohibition prevents any consideration of “reasonableness” from entering the evidence, the arguments of counsel and the court’s charge in such a case. Adherence to this rule has contributed to the state of confusion that now prevails in Pennsylvania products liability law, and the rule should, therefore, be abandoned.
One justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already called for the rejection of this antiquated precept. In Bugosh v. I.U. North America , Justice Thomas Saylor decried the rule’s role in the non-evolution of Pennsylvania products law:
This content has been archived.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]
