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.