You are here: / / SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN...
,

SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the sophisticated intermediary doctrine did not apply as a matter of law to this failure to warn case. Under the doctrine the manufacturer of the silica product at issue would be under a duty to warn plaintiff’s employer, a sophisticated intermediary, but not the plaintiff:

… [I]t is not a complete defense to a failure to warn claim against a product manufacturer under New York law that an injured worker’s employer was adequately warned or otherwise knowledgeable of the dangers of the product… , or that the employer may have been in the best position to give the warning at issue … . Instead, evidence that an employer had knowledge of a hazard or was better able than the manufacturer to provide a warning to the injured worker is relevant to whether a manufacturer satisfied its duty to provide adequate warnings, which is typically a question of fact … . * * *

… [W]e decline to recognize the sophisticated intermediary doctrine on the facts of this case, and we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact whether defendants provided adequate warnings to the injured workers … . Rickicki v Borden Chem., 2018 NY Slip Op 01829, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN, SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT))/SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN, SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT))/WARN, FAILURE TO PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN, SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Read Defendant His Miranda Rights, After the Defendant Interrupted the Reading of the Rights by Telling the Officer He Knew His Rights, Required Suppression of the Statements
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS TRUST LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO THE RAPE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT (PLUMBING PIPES) IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS AS TRESPASS BY THE ARTIFICIAL DIVERSION OF WATER; TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT IS A CONTINUING TRESPASS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OR AN EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITION BY A FORMER ROMANTIC PARTNER SEEKING JOINT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BORN TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AS A FAMILY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE REFEREE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE REFEREE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN A MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 (FOURTH DEPT).
A DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET SUBMITTED PAST THE 60-DAY DEADLINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF... DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE...