180 A.3d 386
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Terence and Judith Tincher's home suffered a lightning-caused fire in 2007 after a lightning-induced arc allegedly punctured corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) manufactured and sold by Omega Flex (TracPipe), causing a gas-fueled fire and substantial property damage.
- The Tinchers sued Omega Flex (strict liability under Restatement (Second) §402A, negligence, breach of warranty); insurer USAA prosecuted assigned claims for reimbursement.
- At trial the court instructed the jury under Azzarello-era law (Restatement (Second) approach): defining a design defect as a product that “lacks any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use” and emphasizing the manufacturer as a “guarantor” (not insurer).
- Jury found for Tinchers on products-liability claim (not negligence) and awarded ~ $1M; Omega Flex post-trial motions denied; Superior Court initially affirmed.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tincher v. Omega Flex overruled Azzarello, set a two-part test for defect (consumer expectation or risk-utility balancing), restored factfinder’s role, and remanded for consideration of post-trial relief.
- On remand the trial court denied Omega Flex’s renewed motion for a new trial, concluding the record would produce the same result; Superior Court reversed, holding the Azzarello-based charge was fundamental error and ordering a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's jury instruction (Azzarello definition of "defect") was legally correct after Tincher | Tincher: the evidence supported defect/unsafe product regardless of charge; remand should let trial court decide if new trial needed but outcome would be the same | Omega Flex: the instruction misstated controlling law after Tincher and prejudiced defendant; entitlement to a new trial | The Azzarello-based charge was erroneous and amounted to fundamental error; new trial required |
| Whether the question of defect (including risk-utility balancing) is for the court or factfinder | Tincher argued a jury could reasonably conclude defect under new test; trial court can assess sufficiency only where reasonable minds cannot differ | Omega Flex argued Tincher restored the factfinder’s role and the jury should be instructed under the new standard | Held: Tincher places defect (including risk-utility) generally with the factfinder; trial court erred by denying new trial based on its own assessment |
| Whether prior jury evidence about risk/utility cures an erroneous charge | Plaintiff: parties already litigated risk/utility; jury heard relevant evidence so instruction error was harmless | Omega Flex: hearing evidence is not a substitute for proper legal instruction; the jury never applied Tincher test | Held: Evidence alone does not cure a fundamentally erroneous charge; proper charge is required and that error likely affected verdict |
| Whether appellate courts or trial courts should decide entitlement to new trial after change in law | Plaintiff: Supreme Court left new-trial decision to trial court on remand; that court’s factual assessment should control | Omega Flex: trial court cannot usurp jury’s function by speculating verdict outcome on retrial | Held: Trial court cannot deny a new trial by substituting its own factfinding where Tincher shifted the legal framework to the jury; remand for new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (overruled Azzarello; adopted two-part defect test—consumer-expectation or risk-utility—and restored factfinder role)
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (prior Restatement (Second) formulation that limited jury consideration and framed defect as lacking an element necessary to make product safe)
- Price v. Guy, 735 A.3d 668 (Pa. 1999) (new trial appropriate when erroneous jury instruction is fundamental or record insufficient to determine its effect)
- Passarello v. Grumbine, 87 A.3d 285 (Pa. 2014) (erroneous jury instruction inconsistent with intervening change in law required new trial)
- Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (two-step standard for reviewing trial court decisions on new-trial motions: (1) did mistake occur; (2) if so, was it a sufficient basis for new trial)