Tincher Unmasked

University of Pennsylvania, Journal of Law & Public Affairs, Vol. 3 No. 2 (2018)

17 Pages Posted: 13 Feb 2019

Date Written: August 2018


Over 76 years ago, Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court called for the adoption of strict liability for products liability cases and for the rejection of negligence in such cases. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently agreed in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. Strict liability leads to corporate liability and this results in increased payments to victims and slightly lower profits. Corporations responded to strict liability with a firm embrace of the negligence cause of action, which puts both parties on an equal footing. This results in corporations winning more cases. The PLAC (an association of corporations that file amici briefs defending corporations) argued for negligence in Tincher.

In this paper I argue in favor of strict liability and support the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Tincher.

Keywords: Tincher, Strict Liability, Negligence, Products Liability, Consumers, Rebooting, Burden of Proof, Amici Briefs

Suggested Citation

Vandall, Frank J., Tincher Unmasked (August 2018). University of Pennsylvania, Journal of Law & Public Affairs, Vol. 3 No. 2 (2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3326166

Frank J. Vandall (Contact Author)

Emory University School of Law ( email )

1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322
United States
404-727-6510 (Phone)
404-727-6820 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics