Products Liability Archives - New York Appellate Digest

Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s expert’s conclusory affidavit alleging defendant’s vehicle was unsafe did not raise a question of fact in this products liability action stemming from the rollover of a vehicle made by defendant (Ford):

The defective design claim should have been dismissed because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing that the Ford van was not negligently designed. ‘Where a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis” whether the product was reasonably safe … . However, an expert cannot raise an issue of fact to defeat a motion for summary judgment when the opinion consists of only bare conclusory allegations of alleged defects or industry wide knowledge … . Here, plaintiffs’ expert’s assertions that the vehicle at issue was unsafe and prone to rollovers was unsupported by any data or calculations concerning the testing he purportedly performed, testing he described in the most conclusory of terms and general of statements … . Richards v Ford Motor Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05469, First Dept 10-12-21

October 12, 2021/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Negligence, Products Liability

THE DEFECTIVE-DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A TRUCK WHICH DID NOT HAVE A BACK-UP ALARM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PURCHASER OF THE TRUCK TESTIFIED HE WAS NOT AWARE THE OPTION WAS AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defective-design cause of action against the defendant sellers of a truck should not have been dismissed. The truck was purchased by plaintiff’s employer who testified he did not know a back-up alarm was an available option. Plaintiff was run over as the truck backed up:

Where, as here, a plaintiff buyer claims that a product without an optional safety feature is defectively designed because the feature was not included as a standard feature, the product is not defective if “(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” … . Here, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s employer, who testified that, at the time he bought the truck that was involved in the accident, he “didn’t know” that a backup alarm was available as an option, thereby raising an issue of fact whether he was actually aware of its availability … . Mariani v Guardian Fences of WNY, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02906, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

May 7, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Employment Law, Evidence, Labor Law, Municipal Law, Negligence, Products Liability

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED CHANGING THE CARBON DIOXIDE CARTRIDGE FOR AN ANIMAL TRANQUILIZER GUN; THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E/LABOR LAW 27-A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence and products liability causes of action against NASCO, the manufacturer of an animal tranquilizer gun, properly survived summary judgment, but the General Municipal Law/Labor Law action against the city and the NYPD should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a police officer, was injured changing the carbon dioxide cartridge for the gun:

NASCO’s expert … opined in mere conclusory fashion that the tranquilizer gun was “appropriately designed.” The affidavit did not, for example, contain any explanation of the gun’s design, or any discussion of industry standards or costs. Nor did it state whether NASCO had received complaints about any of the other tranquilizer guns it had sold. The conclusory affidavit was insufficient to affirmatively demonstrate, prima facie, that the gun was reasonably safe for its intended use … .

NASCO … failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the subject accident … . Triable issues of fact existed, among other things, as to whether the plaintiff was given specific instructions by the NYPD that he failed to follow or whether he used a tool to remove the end cap. …

NASCO, which relied primarily on an instruction sheet produced by the NYPD that the plaintiff testified was never given to him, failed to meet its burden of establishing, prime facie, that the warnings provided to the NYPD were adequate, that no warnings were necessary, or that the failure to give the aforesaid warnings was not a proximate cause of the accident … .

…The City defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action as was predicated upon Labor Law § 27-a. The City defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the tranquilizer gun, which was purchased by the NYPD in 1976, was not defective due to lack of proper maintenance, as alleged by the plaintiff … . Further “[r]ecovery under General Municipal Law § 205-e ‘does not require proof of such notice as would be necessary to a claim in common-law negligence'” … .”Rather, the plaintiff must only establish that the circumstances surrounding the violation indicate that it was a result of neglect, omission, or willful or culpable negligence on the defendant’s part” … . Morales v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02386, Second Dept 4-21-21

April 21, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO OFFER A SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION ABOUT HOW PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE STEP STOOL SHE WAS STANDING ON COLLAPSED; THE DEFENSE EXPERT TESTIFIED SHE COULD HAVE FALLEN ONTO THE STOOL; THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verdict in this products liability case should have been set aside. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when a step stool collapsed as she stood on it. The defendant’s expert testified she could have fallen onto the stool. There was no evidence in the record to support the expert’s opinion, which was objected to by plaintiff. The defense verdict, therefore, should have been set aside:

Following the accident, one of the injured plaintiff’s coworkers discarded the step stool in the trash. At the trial on the issue of liability, the defendant’s expert testified, over the plaintiffs’ objection, that the injured plaintiff’s accident may have occurred because she slipped and fell onto the step stool. Over the plaintiffs’ objection, the jury was asked the question: “Did the subject step stool collapse under the [injured] plaintiff while she was standing on it on October 22, 2013, causing the [injured] plaintiff’s accident?” The jury answered “No,” thereby finding in favor of the defendant on the ground that the accident did not occur as the injured plaintiff said it did. * * *

We agree with the plaintiffs that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of whether the subject step stool collapsed as the injured plaintiff stood on it causing her accident, that the jury could not have reached the verdict it did by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Moreover, the testimony of the defendant’s expert that the accident may have happened because the injured plaintiff fell onto the step stool was speculative, lacked support in the record, and should not have been admitted in evidence … . Montesione v Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01253, Second Dept 3-3-21

March 3, 2021/by Bruce Freeman

Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

DEFENDANT RETAILER’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO FIX A MALFUNCTIONING CROSSBOW AND RETURNED IT TO PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE RETAILER’S RETURN POLICY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS THEREAFTER INJURED BY THE CROSSBOW; THE RETAILER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the defendant retailer which sold an allegedly defective crossbow to plaintiff should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged when he returned the malfunctioning crossbow to the retailer an employee attempted to fix it and gave it back to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged he was thereafter injured by the crossbow:

… [E]ven accepting that defendant had no duty to warn plaintiffs of the alleged defect in the crossbow, it was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Plaintiffs gave deposition testimony in which they explained that they were injured by the crossbow in separate incidents and that, when plaintiff James Garrison returned the crossbow to defendant’s store after the first incident, one of defendant’s employees attempted to repair it and gave it back to Garrison. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties and accepting their account of events as true … , a duty of care arose when the employee chose to undertake the crossbow repair … , and the fact that the repair violated defendant’s return policy for defective or damaged items constituted some evidence of negligence … . Defendant produced no evidence that conclusively demonstrated plaintiffs’ accounts to be untrue or showed the employee’s actions to have played no role in the second crossbow malfunction. Garrison v Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05996, Third Dept 10-22-20

October 22, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability, Toxic Torts

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PROPER BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this asbestos -injury case should not have been granted and, alternatively, even if the motion were properly granted, leave to renew should have been granted based on additional evidence:

In connection with a motion for summary judgment in an action based on exposure to asbestos, defendant has the initial burden of showing “unequivocally” that its product could not have contributed to the causation of decedent’s asbestos-related injury … .

Defendant Burnham failed to sustain its initial burden of demonstrating that its products could not have contributed to decedent’s mesothelioma. Decedent’s testimony identified defendant as the manufacturer of greenhouses in which he worked and cited three possible sources of asbestos: transite benches in the greenhouses, window glazing and the greenhouse boiler. Burnham provided no evidence demonstrating that its products could not have been the source of the asbestos that caused decedent’s illness. It only pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof, which was insufficient to meet its burden … . Even if the burden had shifted, plaintiffs’ evidence in opposition raised an issue of fact as to whether Burnham had sold, distributed, and recommended asbestos-containing products such as those used in plaintiffs’ family’s gardening business. While hearsay, that evidence could be considered by the court since it was not the sole basis of the opposition … .

Alternatively, even if the summary judgment motion had been properly granted, the court should have granted leave to renew in the interests of fairness and justice since plaintiffs presented an affidavit of decedent’s estranged brother, which supplied crucial evidence linking decedent’s illness to Burnham’s products. Fischer v American Biltrite, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03277, First Dept 6-11-20

June 11, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Immunity, Negligence, Products Liability

MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE THE PARENTS FOR CONTRIBUTION ON A THEORY OF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the third-party complaint brought by the defendant manufacturer and seller of a humidifier against the parents of the injured child, alleging negligent supervision of the child, should have been dismissed:

In March 2014, the then-10-month-old infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when she knocked over a humidifier and hot water spilled onto her foot. The infant’s father had placed the humidifier on the living room floor before leaving the apartment with the infant’s five-year-old sibling. The infant’s mother was in the living room when the accident occurred. In August 2014, this action to recover damages for the infant’s injuries was commenced against the defendants, which allegedly manufactured and sold the humidifier. In December 2015, the defendants commenced a third-party action against the parents for contribution. …

There is no legally cognizable cause of action to recover damages for injuries suffered by a minor child against his or her parent for negligent supervision … . Additionally, where a secondary right of contribution is dependent upon “the parent’s alleged failure to perform a duty owing to the plaintiff child, the absence of the primary cause of action defeats the . . . third-party complaint” … . Although there is an exception when the parent’s conduct implicates a duty owed to the public at large … , the acts complained of in the third-party complaint were encompassed within the intrafamily immunity for negligent supervision … . Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02776, Second Dept 5-13-20

May 13, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Negligence, Products Liability, Toxic Torts

THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA OPINION INCLUDE: GENERAL CAUSATION; SPECIFIC CAUSATION; WHETHER THE CLOSING PREJUDICED THE JURY; AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissent, determined there was sufficient evidence of causation to raise a jury question in this asbestos-mesothelioma action. The issues addressed included: (1) general causation; (2) specific causation; (3) whether plaintiff’s counsel’s closing required a new trial; and (4) the apportionment of damages. The opinion is far too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

The Court of Appeals recognized that precise information and exact details are not always available in toxic tort cases and they may not be necessary so long as there is “evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude” that the defendant’s offending substance “has probably caused” the kind of harm of which the plaintiff complains … . * * *

After each sides’ attorney highlighted the weaknesses in the other sides’ expert’s scientific evidence and authorities, it then became the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and decide which opinion was more credible … . There is no legal basis to disturb the jury’s findings and verdict in favor of plaintiff … . * * *

There is no basis, in this record, for a finding that the weight of the evidence presented at trial preponderated in favor of finding no specific causation. * * *

Plaintiff’s counsel’s summation comments were isolated remarks during a very lengthy summation. They were not pervasive, egregious or an obdurate pattern of remarks that inflamed the jury into believing that the focus of plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos contaminated talc was other than airborne particulants that she had breathed in for many years … . * * *

Issues raised by plaintiff on its cross appeal regarding the court’s calculation of offsets for payments made by the settling defendants … do have merit. General Obligations Law § 15-108 requires that a judgment be adjusted by subtracting the greater of other tortfeasors’ equitable share of the damages or the amount actually paid by them. Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am., 2020 NY Slip Op 02261, First Dept 4-9-20

April 9, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-manufacturer (Doka) of an allegedly defective ratchet was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff could not produce the ratchet (spoliation). The ratchet was used to move heavy concrete forms into place along a track. Allegedly the ratchets broke when extra pressure was placed on them when the forms became “bound” on the track. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he used his foot to increase the pressure on the ratchet when the form became bound. Because this was a design-defect case, and because the ratchets allegedly had broken before under similar circumstance, the defendant-manufacturer could present a defense and, therefore, the loss of the ratchet did not warrant dismissal of the complaint:

In cases like this, where the claim is based on a design defect (as opposed to a manufacturing defect), the absence of the product is not necessarily fatal to the defendant. As this Court has observed, a product’s design “possibly might be evaluated and the defect proved circumstantially” … . Circumstantial evidence could, one would imagine, be the testimony of someone involved in the design process, and plans or photographs of the product before it entered the stream of commerce. It could also, assuming that the missing product was one of multiple units manufactured using the same design, be another one of those units. * * *

Doka does not, in any meaningful way, argue why its inability to inspect the exact ratchet that plaintiff was using would prevent it from defending against the products liability claim. Rossi v Doka USA, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 02098, First Dept 3-26-20

March 26, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE REMOTELY OPERATED CRANE COULD FEASIBLY BE MADE SAFER; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact in this products liability case. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a crane operated remotely by plaintiff’s decedent. Defendants’ experts attributed the accident to plaintiff’s decedent’s acts of leaning into the path of the crane and bending over with the remote attached to his hip, causing the crane to be activated inadvertently. Both leaning into the path of the crane and bending over with the remote attached were known to be dangerous and plaintiff’s decedent had trained others accordingly. Although plaintiff’s expert averred that a dead man’s switch would have prevented the accident, he did not present any supporting evidence:

“An expert’s [Darby’s] affidavit — offered as the only evidence to defeat summary judgment — must contain sufficient allegations to demonstrate that the conclusions it contains are more than mere speculation, and would, if offered alone at trial, support a verdict in the proponent’s favor” … . Initially, although Derby alleged that he inspected the remote, his affidavit was not supported by facts of his own independent testing of the device; rather, he relied on deposition testimony of other witnesses to explain the functions of the remote … . Furthermore, although Derby averred that the remote could be made safer by adding a dead man’s switch or by implementing joysticks, he offered no proposed designs that could feasibly be installed … , and, moreover, he pointed to no industry standards or data to support his conclusion that the absence of a dead man’s switch rendered the remote unsafe … . After all, “[a] factual issue regarding design defect is not established merely by pointing to efforts within the industry to make a safer product, without providing some detail as to how the current product is not reasonably safe and how a feasible alternative would be safer” … . Given Derby’s failure to elaborate, and mindful of the testimony of multiple witnesses for defendants who averred that they were not aware of any remote controls in the industry that use a dead man’s switch for crane operations, plaintiff’s proof was insufficient to raise a triable issue regarding design defect … . Darrow v Hetronic Deutschland GMBH, 2020 NY Slip Op 01543, Third Dept 3-5-20

March 5, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

THE DEFECTIVE-DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A TRUCK WHICH DID NOT HAVE A BACK-UP ALARM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PURCHASER OF THE TRUCK TESTIFIED HE WAS NOT AWARE THE OPTION WAS AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PROPER BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE THE PARENTS FOR CONTRIBUTION ON A THEORY OF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA OPINION INCLUDE: GENERAL CAUSATION; SPECIFIC CAUSATION; WHETHER THE CLOSING PREJUDICED THE JURY; AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE REMOTELY OPERATED CRANE COULD FEASIBLY BE MADE SAFER; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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