Products Liability – Page 7 – New York Appellate Digest

COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant manufacturer was not entitled to amend its answer with counterclaims for indemnification and contribution based upon negligent supervision by the injured child’s mother in this products liability action. The child was injured by blender blades. The blender was on the kitchen counter but was not running at the time:

… [P]laintiff’s … four-year-old daughter allegedly was injured when her hand came into contact with the blades of a hand-held stick blender that was left on the kitchen counter, plugged in but not running, while the plaintiff went to retrieve something from the freezer. The plaintiff commenced this action … to recover damages for strict products liability and breach of warranty against the defendants, which allegedly manufactured and sold the blender. The defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff for contribution and indemnification. …

In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications for leave to amend a pleading are to be freely granted “unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit”… . Here, the acts complained of in the proposed counterclaim did not implicate a duty owed to the public at large, but rather, only gave rise to an allegation that the plaintiff negligently supervised her child, which cannot serve as the basis for cognizable claims for contribution or indemnification … . The proposed amendment was, therefore, palpably insufficient, and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Siragusa v Conair Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06564, Second Dept 9-20-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRIBUTION (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COUNTERCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION BASED UPON NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INJURED CHILD ARE NOT PROPER IN A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

September 20, 2017

COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bauer defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this products liability action should have granted. The Bauer defendants were successors in interest to the company (Babcock) which manufactured the allegedly defective ladder. However. the Bauer defendants demonstrated they did not continue the manufacturer’s business:

… [A]s a general rule, a corporation which acquires the assets of another corporation is not liable for the predecessor’s tortious conduct, including a defective and dangerous product manufactured by the predecessor … . There are four exceptions to this general rule against successor liability. A corporation may be held liable for the torts of its predecessors if (1) the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, (2) there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, (3) the purchasing corporation was a mere continuation of the selling corporation, or (4) the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations … .

Here, the Bauer defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with evidence that they did not make or sell the subject ladder, that they were not liable pursuant to the general rule against successor liability, and that none of the exceptions to the general rule applied here. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to any of the exceptions to the general rule, including the two they contested: that Babcock Co., the purchasing corporation, was allegedly a mere continuation of Old Babcock, and that the Bauer defendants impliedly assumed Old Babcock’s tort liability.

With respect to the mere continuation exception, the underlying theory is that, if a corporation goes through “a mere change in form without a significant change in substance, it should not be allowed to escape liability” … . Thus, this exception applies where “it is not simply the business of the original corporation which continues, but the corporate entity itself”… . A continuation envisions something akin to a corporate reorganization, rather than a mere sale, with “a common identity of directors, stockholders and the existence of only one corporation at the completion of the transfer”… .

* * * The mere fact that some … former employees worked for [defendant]. was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Wass v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 06317, Second Dept 8-23-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT))

August 23, 2017

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence, Products Liability

DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing this asbestos-related products liability action should not have been granted. Defendants merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and did not submit prima facie proof demonstrating their products were not the source of asbestos exposure. Therefore summary judgment should have been denied without any reference to the opposing papers:

In February 2015, plaintiff Eileen A. O’Connor was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. Alleging that her illness stemmed from exposure to equipment containing asbestos while working at the Westchester County Department of Labs and Research (hereinafter WCDLR) from approximately 1975 to 1979, O’Connor, along with her husband, derivatively, commenced this personal injury action in 2015 against, among others, defendants Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, Thomas Scientific, Inc. and VWR International, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) … . * * *

… [T]he proof submitted by defendants, respectively, failed to establish that they did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR during the time that O’Connor was employed or that O’Connor was not exposed to any such products … . * * *

… [D]efendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they could not have caused O’Connor’s asbestos-related illness… . Fisher Scientific’s lack of documentation from the 1970s does not establish that it did not sell asbestos-containing products to WCDLR. Otherwise, defendants, respectively, “merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiff[s’] proof, rather than submitting evidence showing why [plaintiffs’] claims fail” … . O’Connor v Aerco Intl., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05487, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

July 6, 2017

Products Liability, Toxic Torts

HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the asbestos-related causes of action against Honeywell as the manufacturer of coke ovens used in a steel plant did not sound in products liability. The huge coke ovens were deemed to be part of the realty, not products in the stream of commerce. Therefore the products liability causes of action should have been dismissed:

We begin our analysis by noting that, in Matter of City of Lackawanna v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment of State of N.Y . (16 NY2d 222, 226-227), the Court of Appeals concluded, when discussing the nature of these coke oven batteries, that “[t]here is no doubt that, by common-law standards, these structures would be deemed real property. Their magnitude, their mode of physical annexation to the land and the obvious intention of the owner that such annexation be permanent would, indeed, compel that conclusion.”

Using the construction of Battery No. 9 as an example, Honeywell’s submissions established that the construction of a coke oven battery was a multistage process that took place over approximately 18 months. The overall construction of the battery would have taken approximately 1,460,000 hours of labor to complete over six phases. * * *

.. .[W]e conclude that service predominated the transaction herein and that it was a contract for the rendition of services, i.e., a work, labor and materials contract, rather than a contract for the sale of a product … . We further conclude that a coke oven, installed as part of the construction of the “great complex of masonry structures” at Bethlehem … , permanently affixed to the real property within a coke oven battery, does not constitute a “product” for purposes of plaintiff’s products liability causes of action … . Terwilliger v Beazer E., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03629, 4th Dept 5-5-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/ASBESTOS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/COKE OVENS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, HUGE COKE OVENS IN A STEEL PLANT WERE NOT PRODUCTS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE OVENS IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

May 5, 2017

Products Liability

TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that the defendant manufacturer of a Bobcat skid loader was not entitled to a jury instruction on the so-called Scarangella defense in this products liability case. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a small tree which entered the open cab of the Bobcat. The Bobcat was rented without a door on the cab. A door was available as a safety device. The Scarangella defense, in limited circumstances, places the ultimate decision whether to employ an available safety device on the buyer rather than the manufacturer. In Scarangella the safety device was a back-up alarm for school buses. The purchaser of the buses opted not to have the alarms installed. Only the buyer’s employees operated the buses and all were aware of the blind spot behind the buses:

The Court of Appeals [in Scarangella] determined that a departure from the rationale for imposing strict liability against the bus seller was warranted because the plaintiff’s employer was a “highly knowledgeable consumer,” the risk of harm was not substantial because the buses were only operated in reverse in the parking yard, and the plaintiff’s employer was in the best position to assess the dangers of not having the alarm (id. at 661). The Court held that a product is not defective and a manufacturer or seller is not liable as a matter of law if it establishes that (1) the buyer was thoroughly knowledgeable about the product and its use and was aware that the safety feature was available; (2) there exist normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional feature; and (3) the buyer was in a position to balance the benefits and risks of not having the optional safety device “in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer’s use of the product” … . Where all three prongs are satisfied, the “buyer,” not the manufacturer or seller, is in a better position to assess the safety of the product without the optional safety feature, and a court should not submit a defective design claim against a manufacturer or seller to the jury, as there is no justification for the accepted rationale imposing strict liability upon the manufacturer or seller … . If one or more of the three prongs is not satisfied, however, the manufacturer or seller is in a better position than the buyer to discover design defects and, therefore, liability can be imposed. * * *

The circumstances of this case demonstrate that the Supreme Court properly determined that the Scarangella exception is inapplicable. When the loader was sold to Taylor, the Bobcat defendants knew that Taylor would rent it out to consumers for their personal use. In other words, the Bobcat defendants knew that Taylor would be renting the loader to persons over whom Taylor had no control, and who might lack any experience operating heavy equipment. This is in sharp contrast to Scarangella, where the individuals at risk from the absence of back-up alarm equipment were almost exclusively the buyer’s employees, and it was readily inferable that these employees were fully aware of a bus driver’s blind spot in backing up a bus and the resultant hazard, and could be expected to exercise special care whenever positioned in proximity to the rear of any bus that was idling or moving in reverse in the yard. Where, as here, the buyer is purchasing the product for use not by its employees but by the general public, over whom the buyer will exercise no control once the product is rented, it would be inappropriate to apply an exception to liability that is premised on the buyer being in a superior position to make the risk-utility assessment. Fasolas v Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02777, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)/BOBCAT (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, SKID LOADER, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)/SKID LOADER (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, BOBCAT TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)/SCARANGELLA DEFENSE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, LOADER, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER)

April 12, 2017

Labor Law-Construction Law, Products Liability

PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question fact whether a defective elevator part caused the elevator to fall when plaintiff, who was repairing the elevator, was in the elevator car. The court further determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) was properly dismissed because securing the elevator to prevent a fall would have made repairing the elevator impossible:

… [P]aintiff raised issues of fact whether the shim was defective and a cause of the accident and whether there was a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the cracked shoe caused the elevator car to get wedged in the hoistway in the manner that plaintiff described, and … [an] engineer involved in the design of the elevator acknowledged that the car could come out of the rails and get hung up if a guide shoe cracked while the elevator was descending. The engineer also testified that, after a previous instance in which a similar guide shoe by the same manufacturer had cracked because bolts had been over-tightened, [the manufacturer] had redesigned the shim in 2003 to prevent the guide shoe from cracking because of over-tightening of the bolts, but had made no effort to notify customers whose elevators had the older shims.

The elevator was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s reliance on McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC (140 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2016]) is unavailing. In that case, the elevator on which the plaintiff was engaged in repair work fell onto the plaintiff because it had not been secured. In this case, plaintiff was inside the elevator, riding up and down to test it. To the extent plaintiff may have been engaged in “repair” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), the statute does not apply, because any securing device would have defeated the purpose of his work by precluding him from riding the elevator … . Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 01813, 1st Dept 3-15-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/ELEVATORS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)

March 15, 2017

Products Liability, Toxic Torts

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS EMANATING FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff’s verdict in this asbestos/mesothelioma case was properly set aside by the trial court. The First Department held the plaintiff’s experts did not present sufficient proof plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos emanating from defendant’s products while working as an auto mechanic:

… [T]he fact that asbestos, or chrysotile, has been linked to mesothelioma, is not enough for a determination of liability against a particular defendant; a causation expert must still establish that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin from the defendant’s products to have caused his disease … . Even if it is not possible to quantify a plaintiff’s exposure, causation from exposure to toxins in a defendant’s product must be established through some scientific method, such as mathematical modeling based on a plaintiff’s work history, or comparing the plaintiff’s exposure with that of subjects of reported studies … .

The evidence presented by plaintiff here was insufficient because it failed to establish that the decedent’s mesothelioma was a result of his exposure to a sufficient quantity of asbestos in friction products sold or distributed by defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff’s experts effectively testified only in terms of an increased risk and association between asbestos and mesothelioma … , but failed to either quantify the decedent’s exposure levels or otherwise provide any scientific expression of his exposure level with respect to Ford’s products … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 01523, 1st Dept 2-28-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/ASBESTOS (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/EXPERT OPINION (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)

February 28, 2017

Negligence, Products Liability, Toxic Torts

ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT.

The Fourth Department determined only the failure to warn causes of action in this lawsuit against a pesticide manufacturer were preempted by federal law. Supreme Court should not have dismissed the negligence, defective design/manufacture and breach of warranty causes of action. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted only those causes of action that could result in state labelling requirements:

The preemption provision of FIFRA provides that, “[i]n general[,] . . . a State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter” (7 USC § 136v [a]). On the other hand, FIFRA provides that, in the interest of “[u]niformity[,] . . . [s]uch State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in dismissing the third, fifth, and sixth causes of action of plaintiff’s amended complaint, as well as those parts of the fourth cause of action that do not allege a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s causes of action and claims alleging defendant’s breach of warranty, ordinary negligence, and defective design and manufacture of its product, i.e., theories unrelated to labeling or packaging, are not preempted by FIFRA … . Esposito v Contec, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00842, 4th Dept 2-3-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/PREEMPTION (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/PESTICIDES (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)

February 3, 2017

Products Liability

BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION.

The First Department determined the jury’s finding of fault for failure to warn in this asbestos case was supported by the evidence. Defendant used asbestos in the manufacture of its boilers where plaintiff’s decedent worked. However, the First Department reduced the trial court’s nearly $10,000,000 award for past pain and suffering to $4, 500,000:

The jury’s verdict is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence … . The evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that, while defendant did not manufacture asbestos, for decades it heavily promoted the use of the type of asbestos insulation to which the decedent was exposed. Further, defendant often sold asbestos products along with its boilers and advertised asbestos as the preferred insulation product to use for its boilers. The evidence also shows that defendant was aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure well before the decedent’s first exposure in the late 1970s, and that the decedent was never advised by defendant or his employers about those dangers. Accordingly, there is no reason to disturb the jury’s determination that defendant had a legal obligation to warn workers such as the decedent of the hazards of asbestos exposure, and that defendant’s failure to warn proximately caused the decedent’s mesothelioma … . Peraica v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06537, 1st Dept 10-6-16

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION)/ASBESTOS (BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION)/BOILERS (BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION)

October 6, 2016

Negligence, Products Liability

MANUFACTURER’S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY.

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, with a concurring opinion, determined the manufacturer of valves used on Navy ships had a duty to warn of the dangers associated with the necessary replacement of asbestos packing made by a third-party.:

Under our precedent, “[a] manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known” … . Additionally, the manufacturer must warn of dangers arising from the product's “intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use” … . The manufacturer's duty also includes a legal obligation to issue warnings regarding hazards arising from foreseeable uses of the product about which the manufacturer learns after the sale of the product … . The duty “extends to the original or ultimate purchasers of the product, to employees of those purchasers and to third persons exposed to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm by the failure to warn” … . * * *

Accordingly, we recognize a manufacturer's duty to warn of the peril of a known and foreseeable joint use of its product and another product that is necessary to allow the manufacturer's product to work as intended. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2016 NY Slip Op 05063, CtApp 6-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (MANUFACTURERS'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)/DUTY TO WARN (NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)

June 28, 2016