Attorneys Await Answers on Key Products Liability Questions

February 12, 2016
The Legal Intelligencer

Categories : General

Types : In the News

When Tincher v. Omega Flex landed on products liability attorneys’ desks 15 months ago, its 137 pages left them looking for more. The state Supreme Court’s fervently awaited decision raised a series of questions, the most pressing of which was when the other foot might drop.


The fact-specific nature of products liability cases makes the task facing Pennsylvania’s courts particularly daunting, according to Jeremy Mishkin of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads. It might have taken just one decision to unsettle the practice area, but it will likely take many more to restore order, attorneys said.

“When you’re eating a dinosaur, you can only eat it one bite at a time,” Mishkin said.

Causation is a “granular” issue, according to Mishkin, a defense attorney, but one that could play a key role in future development of the law. Other states place a higher burden on plaintiffs to prove causation than Pennsylvania does, he said.


Visit to view the full article.


Product Liability, Toxic Torts and Catastrophic Events

Montgomery McCracken’s Product Liability, Toxic Torts and Catastrophic Events Practice has extensive experience representing manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in a variety of products liability and mass tort matters and in […]

Learn more about our Product Liability, Toxic Torts and Catastrophic Events Practice


Montgomery McCracken’s Litigation Department offers a deep bench of skilled and experienced litigators whose practice areas encompass a broad array of industries and substantive legal disciplines.  Our clients include individuals, […]

Learn more about our Litigation Department

1 of 2