Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

634 Pa. 650

130 A.3d 1283

Amato v. Bell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 1, 2016

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2016-02-01

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 2017

1 state decisions

Relies on Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2016-02-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*651ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. [628 Pa. 296], 104 A.3d 328 (Pa.2014), a defendant in a strict-liability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”
Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
/634/pa/650 · .json · Public domain