The Landmark Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. Decision: A New Standard for Strict Liability Claims in Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, if you’ve been injured by a defective product, you might be able to pursue a strict liability claim. This means you may not need to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer, but rather that the product contained a defect that made it unsafe. The landscape of these claims was significantly altered by a pivotal case: Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2014. This blog post will delve into the details of this landmark decision and what it means for product liability claims in Pennsylvania.
The Case: Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.
In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., Terrence and Judith Tincher sued Omega Flex, Inc. after a fire in their home, alleging it was caused by a defective product manufactured by Omega Flex. The fire reportedly started when lightning punctured corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) that transported natural gas, leading to significant property damage. The Tinchers pursued claims of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, focusing on strict liability under Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts.
The central issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether to replace the existing strict liability analysis under Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts with the framework of the Third Restatement of Torts.
Overruling Azzarello and Adopting a New Standard
The Tincher decision marked a significant shift in Pennsylvania product liability law. The Court explicitly overruled its prior ruling in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, which had prevented juries from considering negligence principles in strict liability cases. The Azzarello decision directed the trial court, rather than the jury, to determine whether a product was defective or dangerous. The Supreme Court found the existing framework under Azzarello impractical and inadequate, as it improperly separated negligence concepts from strict liability, leading to confusion.
While the Court declined to adopt the Third Restatement of Torts, it established a new standard for determining whether a product is defective in design defect cases. Now, plaintiffs can prove a product was in a defective condition by demonstrating one of two things:
- Consumer Expectations Test: The danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer.
- Risk-Utility Test: 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 the importance of considering both consumer expectations and a risk-utility analysis to determine if a product is defective comprehensively.
What This Means for Strict Liability Claims
The Tincher decision has several important implications for strict liability claims in Pennsylvania:
- The Role of the Jury: The question of whether a product is in a defective condition is generally a question of fact for the jury to decide. The court can only remove the question from the jury if reasonable minds could not differ on the issue.
- Focus on the Product: The court shifted the focus to the characteristics of the product itself, rather than the conduct of the manufacturer.
- Burden of Proof: The plaintiff must prove that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control, that the defect caused the injury, and that the product was being used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way.
- Alternative Theories: Plaintiffs can proceed under either the consumer expectations test, the risk-utility test, or both.
Proving Your Case
To win a strict liability claim in Pennsylvania, you must prove the following elements:
- The product was defective. This can be a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn.
- The defect existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control.
- The defect caused your injury.
- You used the product as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way.
Damages in a product liability case can include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other economic and non-economic losses.
Types of Defects
In Pennsylvania, a product can be considered defective in three main ways:
- Design Defects: The product’s design includes an unsafe feature or flaw that makes it inherently dangerous.
- Manufacturing Defects: The product is unsafe due to an issue with its construction or manufacture, making it dangerous even if the design is safe.
- Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): The product lacks adequate instructions or warnings about potential risks.
Strict Liability vs. Negligence
It’s important to understand the difference between strict liability and negligence in product liability cases. In a strict liability claim, you don’t have to prove that the company was careless or negligent. You only need to prove that the product was defective and caused your injuries.
In a negligence claim, you must prove that the manufacturer owed you a duty of care, that they breached that duty, and that their breach caused your injuries. While negligence claims do not require proof of a defect, they do require proof of fault.
Navigating the Complexities of Product Liability Law
Product liability cases can be complex and challenging. If you’ve been injured by a defective product, it’s crucial to seek legal advice from an experienced personal injury attorney. They can evaluate your case, explain your rights, and help you navigate the legal process.
Call to Action
If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective product, don’t hesitate to contact our firm for a free consultation. We can help you understand your legal options and fight for the compensation you deserve.