## Facts

- Terrence and Judith Tincher’s home in Downingtown, Pennsylvania, was damaged by a 2007 fire.
- Investigators attributed the fire to lightning that punctured corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) used to transport natural gas to a fireplace.
- The puncture allegedly allowed gas to escape; ignition and sustained burning caused major property damage.
- The homeowners (and their insurer as subrogee) sued Omega Flex, Inc., the CSST manufacturer, asserting strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, with the case centered on strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury under the Azzarello framework and declined to apply Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability; the jury returned a verdict exceeding $1 million for the plaintiffs.
- The Superior Court affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to address the governing strict-liability framework.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania should retain Azzarello as the governing approach to strict products liability under § 402A.
2. Whether Pennsylvania should adopt Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability for design-defect and related strict-liability claims.
3. What standard governs proof that a product is in a “defective condition” in a strict-liability design-defect case.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled Azzarello.
- The Court held that a strict-liability plaintiff must prove the product was in a “defective condition.”
- The Court held that defect is ordinarily a factual question for the fact-finder.
- The Court declined to adopt Restatement (Third) as Pennsylvania law, though it considered its reasoning.
- The Court held that, in design-defect strict liability, defect may be proven under either:
  - a consumer-expectations standard, or
  - a risk–utility standard.
- The Court reversed the Superior Court in part and remanded for the trial court to consider Omega Flex’s post-trial motions under the new framework.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania strict products liability remains grounded in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, but Azzarello’s doctrinal and instructional approach is no longer controlling.
- In a design-defect case, the plaintiff must prove the product was in a “defective condition.”
- Whether a product is defective is generally for the jury to decide, rather than being resolved through an abstract judicial threshold determination.
- A plaintiff may establish design defect by showing either:
  - the product was dangerous beyond the reasonable consumer’s contemplation (consumer expectations), or
  - a reasonable person would find that the probability and seriousness of harm outweigh the burden or costs of precautions (risk–utility).
- Proof of a feasible alternative design is not a categorical requirement in every design-defect case.

## Conclusion

The court replaced Azzarello with a § 402A framework requiring proof of “defective condition,” ordinarily decided by the jury, and allowing design defect to be shown through either consumer expectations or risk–utility balancing, while rejecting wholesale adoption of the Restatement (Third).


Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014)