Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

64 A.3d 626, 619 Pa. 395

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 2013

DocketNo. 842 MAL 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.3d 626 (Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 64 A.3d 626, 619 Pa. 395 (Pa. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of March 2013, 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, slightly rephrased, is:

Whether this Court should replace the strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement with the

analysis of the Third Restatement.

In addition, the parties are directed to brief the question of whether, if the Court were to adopt the Third Restatement, that holding should be applied prospectively or retroactively. See generally Bugosh v. I. U. North America, Inc., 601 Pa. 277, [396]*396971 A.2d 1228, 1242-43 (2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting, joined by Castille, C.J.).

The Motion to File a Reply Brief is DENIED.

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