Tincher v. Omega Flex Inc. (2014): A New Standard for Strict Liability Claims in Pennsylvania
Imagine purchasing a product with the reasonable expectation that it’s safe, only to find it causes significant harm due to a hidden flaw. In Pennsylvania, the landmark case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. (2014) has reshaped how these situations are handled under strict liability law. This ruling has far-reaching implications for manufacturers, consumers, and anyone involved in product liability litigation.
The Backstory: Azzarello and the Need for Change
Before Tincher, Pennsylvania courts operated under the precedent set by Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company (1978). The Azzarello decision directed judges, rather than juries, to determine whether a product was “unreasonably dangerous.” This approach was criticized for removing the crucial question of defectiveness from the hands of the jury and for its strict separation of negligence principles from strict liability claims. This meant that evidence of a manufacturer’s reasonable conduct or compliance with industry standards was often inadmissible.
Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.: The Case That Changed Everything
The Tincher case arose from a fire at the Tinchers’ home, which was ignited by a lightning strike that caused a puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) used to transport natural gas. The CSST was part of a gas transportation system manufactured by Omega Flex, Inc. The Tinchers sued Omega Flex, arguing that the CSST was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because its walls were too thin to withstand the effects of lightning.
Omega Flex countered that the existing legal landscape in Pennsylvania, shaped by Azzarello, unfairly prevented them from presenting a full defense. They argued that the court should adopt the Third Restatement of Torts approach, which would require the plaintiff to prove that the manufacturer could and should have adopted a reasonable alternative design.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision: Overruling Azzarello and Adopting a New Standard
In a landmark decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. overruled Azzarello. The court recognized the need to modernize Pennsylvania’s products liability law and bring it more in line with other jurisdictions. While the court declined to fully adopt the Third Restatement of Torts, it embraced some of its principles.
The court established a new standard for strict liability claims, holding that a plaintiff must prove the product was in a “defective condition.” This defective condition can be demonstrated in one of two ways:
- The Consumer Expectations Test: The plaintiff can show that the danger presented by the product is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer.
- The Risk-Utility Test: The plaintiff can prove that a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions.
The court emphasized that whether a product is in a defective condition is a question of fact that should ordinarily be determined by a jury. This decision restored the jury’s role as the primary fact-finder in strict liability cases.
Key Takeaways from Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.
- Azzarello is Overruled: The decision eliminated the old framework where judges determined whether a product was “unreasonably dangerous.”
- Jury’s Role Restored: Juries now decide whether a product is defective based on the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test.
- Two Complementary Tests: Plaintiffs can use either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test to prove a product is defective.
- Focus on the Product: The focus remains on the product’s condition, not necessarily the manufacturer’s conduct.
- Burden of Proof: The plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the product was in a defective condition.
Implications and Unanswered Questions
The Tincher decision has had a significant impact on product liability litigation in Pennsylvania. By returning the question of defectiveness to the jury, the court has empowered consumers and made it potentially easier to hold manufacturers accountable for defective products.
However, Tincher also left some questions unanswered. For example, the court did not explicitly address whether compliance with industry standards or government regulations could be admitted as evidence. Subsequent cases, such as Sullivan v. Werner Co., have addressed this issue, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirming that evidence of compliance with industry standards is generally inadmissible in strict products liability cases.
The Ongoing Evolution of Product Liability Law
The Tincher decision was a significant step in modernizing Pennsylvania’s product liability law. However, the legal landscape continues to evolve as courts grapple with the implications of Tincher and address the unanswered questions it left behind. Staying informed about these developments is crucial for anyone involved in product liability cases, whether as a plaintiff, a defendant, or a legal professional.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue, please consult with a qualified attorney.