explaining that a biomechanical engineer did not offer improper medical testimony in opining that the forces involved in a collision were such that additional padding in a car seat would not have prevented the plaintiff’s death
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a biomechanical engineer did not offer improper medical testimony in opining that the forces involved in a collision were such that additional padding in a car seat would not have prevented the plaintiff’s death
- “Tincher will affect every stage of future products liability cases.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
STRASSBURGER, J.:
I agree with and join the Majority’s erudite disposition of this matter holding that Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s erroneous jury instruction. My joinder includes the Majority’s discussion of Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 , 104 A.3d 328 (2014). I write separately to note my position that, in light of the Majority’s holding, it is unnecessary and perhaps confusing to address the remaining issues on appeal. To say that an evidentiary ruling is not an abuse of discretion does not preclude the possibility that the opposite ruling also would not be an abuse of discretion. Therefore, I respectfully concur.