Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A decision saying it was a jury question—and not a matter of law—whether caustic wet cement was unreasonably dangerous has been allowed to stand as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review the products liability case.

The justices’ denial of allocatur means they won’t take up the opportunity to 
fine-tune the roles of fact-finder and trial judge under a products liability regime that is still finding its shape in the wake of the game-changing decision Tincher v. Omega Flex.

On Sept. 26, the justices declined to hear the case High v. Pennsy Supply.

This content has been archived.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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.