This Note examines the impact of Tincher v. Omega Flex on evidentiary issues in Pennsylvania defective design products liability litigation, specifically the admission of industry standards and practices evidence to prove or defend against strict liability claims. It argues that despite Tincher’s reintegration of negligence principles into the strict liability framework, industry standards and practices should remain excluded in strict liability cases under Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Norton Co. because their tendency to divert the jury’s attention to the reasonableness of a product’s design outweighs their evidentiary value. Moreover, allowing such evidence would eliminate any remaining distinction between negligence and strict liability and undermine the protective purpose of strict liability.