As many personal injury practitioners are no doubt aware, the landmark Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) marked a seismic shift in this state’s products liability law. Tincher overruled the seminal Azzarello v. Black Bros., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) decision, instituted two new standards for proving a product defect—risk-utility and consumer expectations—and cast doubt on four decades of evidentiary rulings stemming from the prior Azzarello regime. Despite recognizing the far-reaching impact of its holdings, the Tincher court declined to offer guidance on these now-unsettled, “subsidiary issues,” instead inviting “targeted advocacy” in appropriate future cases.

One such subsidiary issue is the admissibility of government and industry standards. Should the jury hear that an allegedly defective product complied with the relevant ANSI or UL standards?  Or that an automobile met the government-mandated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?  Before Tincher, the answer was “no.” Because Azzarello and its progeny instituted a strict wall of separation between strict liability and negligence concepts, and compliance with government and industry standards was believed to be relevant only to the reasonableness of the manufacturer’s conduct, such evidence was held to be inadmissible in a strict liability case.  See Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Co, 528 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. 1987) (industry standards); Gaudio v. Ford Motor, 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009) (government standards).