Case Name: Terence D. TINCHER and Judith R. Tincher, Respondents v. OMEGA FLEX, INC., Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2013-03-26
Citations: 619 Pa. 395
Docket Number: No. 842 MAL 2012
Parties: Terence D. TINCHER and Judith R. Tincher, Respondents v. OMEGA FLEX, INC., Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 619
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
64 A.3d 626
Terence D. TINCHER and Judith R. Tincher, Respondents v. OMEGA FLEX, INC., Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 26, 2018.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 26th day of March 2013, 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, slightly rephrased, is:
Whether this Court should replace the strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement with the
analysis of the Third Restatement.
In addition, the parties are directed to brief the question of whether, if the Court were to adopt the Third Restatement, that holding should be applied prospectively or retroactively. See generally Bugosh v. I. U. North America, Inc., 601 Pa. 277, 971 A.2d 1228, 1242-43 (2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting, joined by Castille, C.J.).
The Motion to File a Reply Brief is DENIED.