HERE THE JURY WAS PRESENTED WITH SEPARATE INTERROGATORIES FOR “STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY” AND “NEGLIGENT DESIGN” RESULTING IN AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT; THE JURY FOUND THE DESIGN DEFECTIVE AND NOT REASONABLY SAFE BUT ALSO FOUND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SELECTING THE DESIGN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, determined the jury interrogatories in this products liability case led to an inconsistent verdict. Based on the interrogatories, the jury found the product (an automobile air bag system) was negligently designed and not safe but further found defendant (BMW) was not negligent in selecting that design:

… BMW contends that the verdict sheet is internally inconsistent and fatally flawed because it failed to combine plaintiff’s three causes of action into a single set of interrogatories, despite each cause of action being legally synonymous with the others. We find this contention to have merit. Under CPLR 4111 (c), “when the answers on a verdict sheet ‘are inconsistent with each other and one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court shall require the jury to further consider its answers and verdict or it shall order a new trial’ ” … . An inconsistency occurs “only when a verdict on one claim necessarily negates an element of another cause of action” … . Where, like here, a plaintiff “has pleaded both strict liability and negligent design causes of action, the standards set forth” for resolving a strict products liability claim “apply to both” … — and a verdict sheet which purports to inquire separately into whether a design was “negligent” or “not reasonably safe” is essentially “redundant” … . …

Here, plaintiff’s strict products liability and negligent design claims were both premised upon BMW’s use of an untethered, deflector-equipped driver-side airbag rather than a tethered design, and the same evidence concerning the risks and utility of that design and the feasibility of the proposed alternative was offered to support both theories. BMW objected to separate interrogatories, warning that they could produce inconsistent findings, and proposed a single interrogatory asking whether the airbag was “defectively or negligently designed.” Plaintiff opposed that request, expressly stating that he was “willing to accept the risk of an inconsistent verdict.” Supreme Court submitted the claims separately, resulting in a jury verdict finding that the airbag was defectively designed because it was not reasonably safe, but that BMW was not negligent in selecting that same design. Janof v Auto Warehouse, 2026 NY Slip Op 06189, Third Dept 10-22-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the overlap between strict products liability and negligent design theories and how separate jury interrogatories for each can result in an inconsistent verdict requiring a new trial.

​