When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was mulling its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, the main question on the minds of many Pennsylvania attorneys had been whether the state justices would depart from the Restatement (Second) of Torts’ approach to products liability practice and adopt the Restatement (Third).
The justices defied those expectations by choosing a middle ground, clinging to several principals from the Second Restatement while selecting some elements of the Third.
This content has been archived.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]
