You are here: Home / Products Liability
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
,

FRENCH COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED ELEVATOR BRAKES FOR SALE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over a French company (Warner Europe) which manufactured elevator brakes in this elevator-malfunction case. The French company sold the brakes to other companies which incorporated the brakes into their elevator A.C. drives:

Warner Europe established that it does not sell the elevator brakes it manufactures in France to any customers in New York or contract with any other company to distribute its elevator brakes to customers in New York. Instead, it sells its elevator brakes as component parts to other manufacturers which incorporate them into A.C. drives, which are then sold to other manufacturers that incorporate the A.C. drives containing the elevator brakes into elevator systems. Warner Europe also established that it has no knowledge of the end users of the elevator brakes, and that it does not sell replacement elevator brakes or component parts to the end-user customers who purchased the elevators into which they were incorporated. Warner Europe also established that its products were neither sold nor advertised online. Finally, Warner Europe showed that it has no real or personal property in New York, no registered agent or telephone number in New York, and no bank or investment account in New York, and that it does not advertise in New York. Thus, the record does not support a finding that Warner Europe knew or reasonably should have known that its manufacture and sale of elevator brakes would have a direct consequence in New York… such that long-arm jurisdiction could be exercised.

Moreover, the plaintiffs and the defendants that opposed Warner Europe’s motion to dismiss did not make a showing of a “sufficient start” to warrant the denial of the motion … . There is no basis to allow discovery to be conducted on the issue of personal jurisdiction since the opposing parties did not allege any facts which, if proven, would establish that Warner Europe may be subject to personal jurisdiction in New York … . Grandelli v Hope St. Holdings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07386, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/by
, , ,

GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Goodyear’s motion to dismiss the products liability complaint for lack of jurisdiction should have been granted. Plaintiff, a New York resident, was injured when a tire manufactured by Goodyear allegedly malfunctioned causing the car to overturn in Virginia. The Second Department held that plaintiff did not rebut Goodyear’s argument that it did not have significant affiliations with New York and noted that a corporation’s registration with the New York State Department of State does not confer jurisdiction on New York:

“While the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, the plaintiffs, in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” … . “General jurisdiction in New York is provided for in CPLR 301, which allows a court to exercise such jurisdiction over persons, property, or status as might have been exercised heretofore'”… . A court may exercise general jurisdiction over foreign corporations “when their affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State” … .

Here, in opposition to Goodyear’s motion, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over Goodyear existed under CPLR 301. The plaintiff did not rebut the evidence submitted by Goodyear showing that Goodyear’s affiliations with New York are not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home here … . Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “a corporate defendant’s registration to do business in New York and designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation’s affiliations with New York” … . Aybar v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06584, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

/by
, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over two dissents, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants in this personal injury case stemming from a potholder catching fire. The Appellate Division had reversed because plaintiff’s deposition testimony conflicted with the conclusions of plaintiff’s expert. The facts were not discussed:

The courts below erred in granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motions. Although the plaintiff’s deposition testimony partially contradicted the factual conclusions reached by her expert witnesses, the expert opinions were based upon other record evidence and were neither speculative nor conclusory. Insofar as plaintiff raised genuine issues of fact on the element of causation, summary judgment should not have been granted on that ground … . We remit for Supreme Court to consider the alternative grounds for summary judgment defendants raised in their motions and neither Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division reached.

… Judges ]Rivera, Stein, Fahey and Wilson concur. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Garcia and Feinman dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in the Appellate Division memorandum decision (Salinas v World Houseware Producing Co., Ltd., 166 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2018]). Salinas v World Houseware Producing Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06537, CtApp 9-12-19

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER WAS SPRAYED WITH DIESEL FUEL AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE TANK OF THE BUS SHE WAS DRIVING; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GAS PUMP NOZZLE AND THE GAS STATION DEMONSTRATED THE NOZZLE AND THE GAS PUMP WERE WORKING PROPERLY; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT DESIGN FLAW IN THE FUEL SYSTEM OF THE BUS; THE NOZZLE MANUFACTURER’S AND THE GAS STATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the products liability cause of action against the manufacturer of a gas pump fuel nozzle (Husky), and the premises liability cause of action against the gas station (Kwik Fill) should have been dismissed. The plaintiff was sprayed with diesel fuel as she attempted to fill the tank in the bus (manufactured by Coach) she was driving. There was evidence that the design of the fuel system of the bus may have been the cause:

In opposition to Husky’s motion, the Coach defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert and the deposition testimony of the vice president of engineering of defendant Motor Coach Industries, Ltd. The expert opined that the accident was caused by a nozzle malfunction. He did not, however, identify any particular defect in the nozzle, which he did not inspect. We thus conclude that the expert’s opinion is based on mere speculation and is insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . …

It is undisputed that the Kwik Fill defendants hired an outside vendor that regularly inspected and serviced their fuel pumps, and, in support of their motion, the Kwik Fill defendants submitted evidence establishing that the vendor determined that the fuel pumps were working properly before and after the accident, thus establishing that the Kwik Fill defendants maintained their property in a reasonably safe condition … . Menear v Kwik Fill, 2019 NY Slip Op 05845, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/by
, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant (Wilputte), which sold coke ovens for steel production, did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, the ovens were not “products” triggering the duty to warn. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted (by the Appellate Division). Plaintiff’s decedent worked on top of the coke ovens and alleged breathing the toxic substances caused lung cancer. Plaintiffs alleged defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff’s decedent to use a respirator when working on the ovens. The Appellate Division had determined the coke ovens, housed in so-called “batteries,” were akin to buildings and construction of the buildings was a service, not a product:

… [D]efendant has not met its burden in showing that the coke ovens at issue are not products as a matter of law. Regardless of the alterations Bethlehem [the steel manufacturer] may have made to the scale and specifications of the battery at large, the ovens themselves served one function: the production of coke. This process was standard across all variations of coke ovens that Wilputte sold, ultimately placing the hazardous thing at issue squarely within the category of products to which liability has attached in the failure-to-warn context. …

… Wilputte was responsible for placing the ovens into the stream of commerce and that it derived financial benefit from its role in the production process. Indeed, by the time decedent began working for Bethlehem, Wilputte had sold hundreds of coke ovens to plants … . Wilputte also marketed its ovens with informational brochures showing the completed ovens and their functionality, indicating that Wilputte, not Bethlehem, was the commercial source of the product. … Although the ovens were largely assembled and completed on-site, that merely speaks to the logistical realties of the market of which Wilputte had a considerable share. …

… [T]he record supports Supreme Court’s conclusion that Wilputte was in the best position to assess the safety of the coke ovens because of its superior knowledge regarding the ovens’ intended functionality … . “A major determinant of the existence of a duty to warn” is an assessment of “whether the manufacturer is in a superior position to know of and warn against those hazards” inherent to its product … . Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 04640, CtApp 6-11-19

 

/by
,

THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN A SAFETY FEATURE IS AVAILABLE BUT THE BUYER CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE IT, MAY BE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE BUYER IS A RENTAL BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT’S AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S CONTRARY RULING REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) the so-called Scarangella exception may apply where the manufacturer sells its product to a rental business; and (2) the jury instruction misstated the law concerning a manufacturer’s liability where its product is sold to a rental business. The Scarangella case carved out an exception to strict products liability which may apply when the manufacturer has made a safety feature optional and the buyer chooses not to purchase it. Here the plaintiff was operating a Bodcat loader when he was crushed by a small tree which came into the cab. Bobcat sells a cab enclosure (“door kit”) which may have deflected the tree. The rental company, Taylor, which purchased the Bobcat and rented it to plaintiff, did not outfit the rented Bobcat with the door kit. The trial court held that the Scarangella exception is never available to a manufacturer where the product is sold to a rental company. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held the Scarangella exception can be available where a rental business is the purchaser, depending upon the evidence:

[In Scarangella] we held that a product is not defective — and a manufacturer or seller is not strictly liable for a design defect based upon a claim that optional safety equipment should have been a standard feature — when the following three conditions are met: “(1) the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available; (2) there exist normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional equipment; and (3) the buyer is in a position, given the range of uses of the product, to balance the benefits and the risks of not having the safety device in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer’s use of the product” … . When these elements are present, “the buyer, not the manufacturer, is in the superior position to make the risk-utility assessment, and a well-considered decision by the buyer to dispense with the optional safety equipment will excuse the manufacturer from liability” … . * * *

Having deemed Scarangella to be wholly inapplicable, neither the trial court nor the Appellate Division examined whether Bobcat raised a triable question of fact warranting a Scarangella charge. … For purposes of resolution of this appeal, it is sufficient to observe as a matter of law, based on the evidence presented at this trial, that Bobcat was not entitled to a directed verdict in its favor on the Scarangella exception. Whether a Scarangella instruction will be appropriate on retrial is a matter for the trial court to determine based on the evidence presented at that time.  Fasolas v Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03657, CtApp 5-9-19

 

/by
, ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SLANTED FLOOR OF THE IN-GROUND POOL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WAY THE POOL WAS BUILT, THE LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DIVING ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the products liability cause of action against the builder of an in-ground swimming pool (Swim Tech) properly survived summary judgment and further determined the out-of-possession landlords’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff dove into the pool and struck his head on a slant portion of the pool wall/floor. With respect to the property owners’ liability, the court wrote:

An out-of-possession landowner who has assumed the obligation to make repairs to its property can be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition if it is established that the landowner created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Whether a dangerous condition exists on property so as to create liability on the part of a landowner depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . ” [T]he owner of a private residential swimming pool has a duty to maintain the pool in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . A landowner also has the duty to warn of potentially dangerous conditions that are not readily observable … . ” To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the defendants] to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the owners failed to establish, prima facie, that the slanted wall in the deep end of their pool was not dangerous or that they lacked constructive notice of the condition … . McDermott v Santos, 2019 NY Slip Op 03039, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

/by
,

DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the distributor’s (Skyfood’s) and seller’s (E & A’s) motions for summary judgment in this products liability and negligent design action should have been granted. Plaintiff lost several fingers when he tried to remove a piece of cheese from a meat grinder being used to grate cheese by reaching into the hopper without turning the machine off. The court held that the plaintiff’s own actions constituted to sole proximate cause of the injury and the danger was open and obvious (no duty to warn):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Skyfood’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging strict products liability and negligent design insofar as asserted against it. Skyfood established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action by submitting, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of the plaintiff and the affidavit of an expert, which showed that the plaintiff’s own conduct of knowingly placing his hand into the hopper of the operating cheese grater without turning it off was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of the separate motions of Skyfood and E & A which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging failure to warn insofar as asserted against each of them. Skyfood and E & A made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted against them by establishing, as a matter of law, that they had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the open and obvious danger of knowingly placing his hand into a cheese grater in close proximity to its spinning blade … . Hernandez v Asoli, 2019 NY Slip Op 02688, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

/by
,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FARM EQUIPMENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this products liability action should have been granted. Plaintiff “was working inside of a piece of farm equipment known as a grain cart, she lost her footing and her right leg became caught in a rotating auger.” A steel safety guard covering the auger had apparently been removed:

… [T]he Killbros defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert, which was incorporated by reference into Bentley’s moving papers, who opined that plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred if the steel safety guard had not been removed. …

Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability causes of action insofar as they are predicated on a design defect theory by submitting evidence that the product was reasonably safe … . The Killbros defendants’ expert averred that the steel safety guard was manufactured in accordance with industry standards, was designed to last the life of the product, and was “state of the art” inasmuch as it was permanently welded to the interior of the grain cart and could not be removed except by using an acetylene torch or other such heavy-duty tool … . …

… [T]he Killbros defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action against them alleging negligent design and manufacture. “[I]nasmuch as there is almost no difference between a prima facie case in negligence and one in strict liability,” we conclude that plaintiffs similarly failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to their cause of action for negligent design and manufacture … . Beechler v Kill Bros. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 01993, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

/by
,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF THAT DEFENDANT SUPPLIED THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE WIRE MESH TO THE RETAILER IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WAS SPECULATIVE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Prime Source’s motion for summary judgment in this products liability case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when a roll of wire mesh recoiled and struck him. Prime Source presented it was not in the manufacturing or distribution chain of the wire mesh and plaintiff’s proof too speculative to raise a question of fact:

In strict products liability, a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or retailer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results from the use of the product regardless of privity, foreseeability, or the exercise of due care … . Liability, however, may not be imposed upon a party that is outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain … . The identity of the manufacturer or supplier of a defective product may be established by circumstantial evidence … . The circumstantial evidence of the identity of the manufacturer or supplier of a defective product causing personal injury must establish, however, “that it is reasonably probable, not merely possible or evenly balanced, that the defendant was the source of the offending product” … . “Speculative or conjectural evidence of the manufacturer’s identity is not enough” … .

Prime Source established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain of the mesh … . In opposition to the motion by Prime Source, the plaintiff’s attorney submitted an affirmation in which he stated that on the return date of the order to show cause which commenced the proceeding to obtain pre-action disclosure, a representative from Sand Man [the retailer] “produced a sheet of paper on which she had written the names of two suppliers she claims had supplied wire mesh to Sand Man” prior to the date of the subject accident. This affirmation was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, because it did not establish “that it is reasonably probable, not merely possible or evenly balanced” … that Prime Source, rather than Steel Services, was the source of the mesh … . The plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence “that might permit a reasoned inference” that Prime Source, rather than Steel Services, supplied the mesh to Sand Man … . Tyminskyy v Sand Man Bldg. Materials, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00632, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy