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: Suggested Citation