Amato v. Bell

130 A.3d 1283, 634 Pa. 650, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 119
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 1, 2016·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. [628 Pa. 2967, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa.2014), a defendant in a stricWiability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”
Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Amato v. Bell, 130 A.3d 1283, 634 Pa. 650, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 119 (Pa. 2016).

130 A.3d 1283 (Amato v. Bell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Honda Motor Co. v. Martinez, C.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
High, J. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. High, C., II.
154 A.3d 341 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Hatcher v. SCM Group North America, Inc.
167 F. Supp. 3d 719 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2016)