In a strict product liability claim, compliance with government regulations and industry standards can be powerful evidence for the defense. Such evidence traditionally has been inadmissible under Pennsylvania law based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton Co., Inc., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987). The Court's decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), however, raises questions about the continued viability of Lewis and provides defendants with a compelling argument that this type of evidence should be admissible. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania courts have been slow to reach that conclusion, and recent Superior Court decisions cast doubt on the admissibility of such evidence, which at best remains an open issue.
Posts tagged "Lewis v. Coffing Hoist"
Subscribe To This Blog's Feed
- Employer Awareness of Implicit Gender Bias in the Workplace
- When it Comes to Retaliation, Timing Isn't Everything - Third Circuit Reinforces that Temporal Proximity Must be Considered with Other Evidence of Causation
- Are You Prepared for a Religious Accommodation Request? Third Circuit Finds Employer's Approach Proper
- Supreme Court of PA Holds That an Increase in UIM Coverage Requires Auto Insurers to Offer Opportunity to Waive Stacking