In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. 17 MAP 2013 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court substantially changed products liability law in that state. First, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned a 35-year-old Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that had separated the concepts of strict liability and negligence in a manner that made defending product liability design defect claims difficult for manufacturers. That overruled decision had limited or excluded state of the art and industry standards defenses, and had required that juries be instructed that a manufacturer is a “guarantor” of its products. That pro-manufacturer change was, however, off-set by the court rejecting the adoption of the Third Restatement of Torts in favor of selecting Section 402(a) of the Second Restatement of Torts as the rule of law in Pennsylvania. The Restatement Third has been criticized by plaintiffs as being too manufacturer-friendly in such specifics as requiring a plaintiff to show the existence of a reasonable alternative design, while Section 402(a) of the Second Restatement permits the plaintiff to prove a product defective either through the consumer expectation test or the risk/utility test.