Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2016

Amato v. Bell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided February 1, 2016 · Consideration, Eakin, Matter

130 A.3d 1283; 634 Pa. 650; 2016 Pa. LEXIS 119 (Atlantic Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Hatcher v. SCM Group North America, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2016)
High, J. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. High, C., II. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)
American Honda Motor Co. v. Martinez, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)

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 1st day of February, 2016, 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, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. [628 Pa. 2967, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), a defendant in a stricWiability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.