An attorney representing plaintiffs in a case that has become synonymous with a new era of products liability law in Pennsylvania argued before a panel of the state Superior Court on Tuesday that juries do not need to find that a product was unreasonably dangerous in order to determine that the product was defective. But at least one judge on the intermediate appellate court appeared to disagree.
Cozen O’Connor attorney Mark Utke, appearing before the Superior Court in the second trip taken by Tincher v. Omega Flex to appellate court, argued the Supreme Court’s seminal products liability decision did not require a specific jury charge asking the jury if the defendant’s product was defective.
This content has been archived.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]
