Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2013

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided March 26, 2013
64 A.3d 626; 619 Pa. 395; 2013 WL 1222123; 2013 Pa. LEXIS 533 (Atlantic Reporter, Third Series)
Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 *627retroactively. See generally Bugosh v. I.U. North America, Inc., 601 Pa. 277, 971 A.2d 1228, 1242-43 (2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting, joined by Castille, C.J.).

The Motion to File a Reply Brief is DENIED.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.