Amato v. Bell
Amato v. Bell
634 Pa. 650; 130 A.3d 1283; 2016 WL 381069
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Hatcher v. SCM Group North America, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2016)
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
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. 296], 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), a defendant in a strict-liability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.