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.
