Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.
104 A.3d 328, 628 Pa. 296, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3031 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Pennsylvania strict liability design defect claim, a plaintiff may prove that a product is in a 'defective condition' by showing either that (1) the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer, or (2) a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions.
Facts:
- Terrence and Judith Tincher's home was equipped with a TracPipe System, manufactured by Omega Flex, which used corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) to transport natural gas to a fireplace.
- The walls of the CSST were approximately 1/100 of an inch thick.
- On June 20, 2007, a lightning strike occurred near the Tinchers' home.
- The lightning strike caused a small puncture in the CSST, which allowed natural gas to escape and ignite.
- The resulting fire caused significant damage to the Tinchers' home and personal property.
- The Tinchers’ experts testified that the thin walls of the CSST made it highly susceptible to puncture from a lightning strike, unlike traditional black iron pipe which is ten times thicker.
- Omega Flex’s experts testified that the TracPipe System met all applicable industry standards, which did not address lightning protection, and that it offered significant advantages over black iron pipe, such as flexibility and corrosion resistance.
- Conflicting evidence was presented as to whether a bonding clamp, intended to ground the system and prevent electrical arcing, had been properly installed before the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrence and Judith Tincher sued Omega Flex in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), asserting claims including strict products liability.
- Omega Flex moved to have the trial conducted under the legal standards of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, but the trial court denied the request.
- The case was tried before a jury under the existing Pennsylvania standard based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts as interpreted by Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co.
- The jury found in favor of the Tinchers on the strict liability claim and awarded damages of $958,895.85; the jury found in favor of Omega Flex on a separate negligence claim.
- The trial court denied Omega Flex's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, and entered judgment on the verdict.
- Omega Flex, as appellant, appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court), with the Tinchers as appellees.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court's precedent in Azzarello.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest court) granted Omega Flex's petition for allowance of appeal on the limited issue of whether to replace the Section 402A analysis with that of the Third Restatement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Pennsylvania law, what must a plaintiff prove to establish that a product is in a 'defective condition' for a strict liability design defect claim, and should the Court adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts standard for such claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Castille
A plaintiff must prove a product is in a 'defective condition' by showing either that the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average consumer (the consumer expectations test) or that a reasonable person would conclude the product's risks outweigh its utility (the risk-utility test). No, the Court declines to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts. The Court overrules its prior decision in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., which had created an unworkable and confusing framework for strict liability cases. The Azzarello standard improperly removed the risk-utility analysis from the jury's consideration, treating it as a threshold question of law for the judge. It also created an artificial and impractical divide between strict liability and negligence principles. Instead of adopting the Restatement (Third), which the court finds too rigid with its requirement to prove a reasonable alternative design, the Court establishes a new composite standard. This standard, which allows a plaintiff to prove a defect under either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test, better reflects the dual origins of strict liability in warranty and negligence law. This approach returns the ultimate determination of whether a product is in a defective condition to the finder of fact.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Saylor
I concur in the majority's long overdue decision to overrule Azzarello. However, I dissent from the majority's decision to create a new, unstructured standard for strict liability. Instead, the Court should have adopted the framework delineated in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. The majority's creation of a new, alternative standard, particularly the 'freestanding, skeletal consumer-expectations test,' is an act of substantive lawmaking for which the adjudicative process is poorly suited and which will likely lead to further confusion, similar to what occurred in the wake of Azzarello.
Analysis:
This decision represents a seismic shift in Pennsylvania products liability law, abandoning the 35-year-old framework established by Azzarello. By formally reintroducing risk-utility balancing as a question of fact for the jury and allowing an alternative consumer expectations test, the court provides a clearer and more flexible standard for design defect claims. The ruling dissolves the rigid doctrinal wall between strict liability and negligence, acknowledging their conceptual overlap in design defect cases. The Court's explicit rejection of the Restatement (Third) of Torts signals a commitment to developing a distinct Pennsylvania common law of products liability, rather than conforming to the national trend, and will influence litigation strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants in future design defect cases.
