The court in Tincher v. Omega Flex, 2014 Pa. Lexis 3031, held that a plaintiff pursuing a cause of action under a theory of strict liability still must prove that the product was in a defective condition, as defined in Section 402A of the Second Restatement. The court set forth two ways in which a plaintiff now must prove a products liability case:
• The danger must be unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer (the “consumer expectations” analysis).
This content has been archived.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]
