Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
104 A.3d 328 (2014)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Terence and Judith Tincher (plaintiffs) sued Omega Flex, Inc. (defendant) after a gas line it manufactured and lightning allegedly caused a fire. The experts disputed whether various alternative gas-line designs were practicable or would have worked under the circumstances. The court used a strict-liability jury instruction from Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978). Omega wanted the court to use the Third Restatement of Torts: Products Liability standard instead, which would have required the Tinchers to show that an available, reasonable alternative design would have prevented the fire. The jury awarded the Tinchers over $1 million, and Omega appealed, arguing that the court applied the wrong standard.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Castille, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.