The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged injuries arising out of a 2017 car accident. The case centered on alleged defects in a 1992 sports car’s occupant restraint system and roof design. The analysis from the Superior Court, while non-precedential, offers crucial insights into Pennsylvania’s product liability law particularly with regard to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark Tincher opinion.
Not everything stamped “privileged” is safe from prying eyes. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled that interview notes compiled by a sorority’s leadership after a tragic incident were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. This decision serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers and their clients on how privilege works—and when it does not. See King v. Alpha Sigma Tau Sorority et al., 2025 PA Super 8, No. 55 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super 2025).