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.

This content has been archived.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]