Amato v. Bell & Gossett, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 189, 2015 PA Super 83 (Pa. Super. 2015)

Tincher is applicable to product liability claims based upon a failure to warn

The plaintiff brought this product liability action against the supplier/manufacturer of a product that contained asbestos, alleging, inter alia, that he developed mesothelioma as a result of the defendant’s failure to warn. Citing Tincher, the defendant argued that it was entitled to a “state-of-the-art” jury instruction that considered the reasonableness of its conduct under the circumstances. In response, the plaintiff argued that Tincher was distinguishable because it was a design defect case—not a failure to warn case. The Superior Court held that, because Tincher had the broad effect of returning “considerations of reasonableness” to the fact-finder, the decision was equally applicable to failure-to-warn cases. However, the court further concluded that, because the defendant had consistently maintained the position that its product was entirely risk-free, it had “no need for a ‘state-of-the-art’ instruction as to the foreseeability of the risks or the reasonableness of its conduct[.]”

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015

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 © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.