Pa. Justices Adopt New Standards for Strict Liability Claims

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, No. 17 MAP 2013, it addressed the proper standard under Pennsylvania law for strict liability claims relating to allegedly defective products. Although the court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, it overruled its prior holding in Azzarello v. Black Brothers, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), which created roadblocks to the introduction by defendants of the reasonableness of their actions in designing products. Before rendering its decision, the court reviewed the history of strict products liability law as it developed in Pennsylvania and how Azzarello was impracticable in its application.

Strict liability for defective products developed from the social policy determination that the cost of injuries resulting from defective products should be borne by the manufacturers of the products rather than by the injured persons. For almost 50 years, strict liability under Pennsylvania law has been governed by Section 402A of the Second Restatement, which provides that “one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability [for the harm caused].”