Adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts and forcing a plaintiff to prove the existence of a reasonable alternative product could create an “insurmountable hurdle” for plaintiffs in products liability cases, the plaintiff’s counsel in Tincher v. Omega Flex argued before the state Supreme Court.
The justices heard the arguments in Tincher, in which the court is expected to determine whether to adopt the Restatement (Third) as Pennsylvania state law, in Pittsburgh on Tuesday. Attorneys on both sides focused much of their arguments on the reasonable alternative product requirement that adopting the Restatement (Third) will impose.
This content has been archived.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]
