The game-changing decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex means that a judge improperly decided whether wet concrete is an unreasonably dangerous product, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled in one of its first full-throated applications of the seminal products liability case.
A split three-judge panel of the court Jan. 13 determined in High v. Pennsy Supply that a Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas judge incorrectly considered whether wet concrete, which severely burned the plaintiffs, was unreasonably dangerous. The trial court had tossed the case on summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs could not prove the product was dangerous under the consumer expectation test, which is one of two products liability theories plaintiffs can pursue in the wake of Tincher.
This content has been archived.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]
