Evidence relating to comparative negligence, assumption of the risk, product misuse and industry standards may be admissible in a product liability action.

The defendant sought to introduce evidence in support of its affirmative defenses of comparative negligence, assumption of the risk, product misuse and industry standards. Rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that such evidence is inadmissible under Pennsylvania law, the court analyzed the contours of the risk-utility test as set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tincher. In denying the plaintiff’s motion to preclude the evidence, the court noted that the “[k]nee-jerk rejection of legal concepts remotely related to negligence in product liability actions . . . was clearly discouraged by Tincher’s extensive explication of the overlapping concepts of strict liability and negligence.” The court further ruled that, subject to other evidentiary considerations, industry standards are admissible because they “[m]ay make the likelihood that a manufacturer acted reasonably more probable by showing that those actions were endorsed by ‘specialized individuals with knowledge of product design superior to that of the courts.”‘

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2016}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}