You are here: / Products Liability
,

Injury While Trying to Pick Up a Fallen 3000 Pound Roll of Paper Was a Foreseeable Consequence of an Alleged Equipment Defect Which Caused the Roll to Fall

The Fourth Department determined the summary judgment motion of the defendants—manufacturers and modifiers of a pallet truck—was properly denied.  The complaint alleged the pallet truck and the roll cradle with which the pallet truck was modified were defective, causing a 3000 pound roll of paper to fall off the truck.  Plaintiff was severely injured while trying to lift the fallen roll.  The defendants’ arguments that any defects in the pallet truck and roll cradle were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the attempt to pick up the fallen roll was the superseding cause of the injuries, were rejected. The court determined the cause of the injury was within the class of foreseeable hazards associated with a fallen roll and the risk of the intervening act (lifting the fallen roll) was the same risk that renders the actor negligent:

“As a general rule, the question of proximate cause is to be decided by the finder of fact, aided by appropriate instructions” … . Where the cause of an accident is “within the class of foreseeable hazards that [a] duty exists to prevent, the [defendant] may be held liable, even though the harm may have been brought about in an unexpected way” … . We conclude that the hazard that caused plaintiff’s injury, i.e., the movement of the roll while it was being placed back in an upright position, was “within the class of foreseeable hazards” associated with a roll falling off the allegedly defective pallet truck …, and thus a jury “could rationally [find] that . . . there was a causal connection between [defendants’ alleged] negligence and plaintiff’s injuries” … . We thus reject the contention of defendants that the falling roll merely “furnished the occasion” for plaintiff’s accident.

We also reject the contention of defendants that the actions of plaintiff and his coworkers in attempting to upright the roll were a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injuries. “An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” … . As noted above, the risk of the roll falling while being uprighted is the same risk underlying plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence, and we conclude that the actions of plaintiff and his coworkers were not “of such an extraordinary nature” as to relieve defendants of liability … . Ard v Thompson & Johnson Equip. Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03985, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

Manufacturers Responsible for Packaging a Product Owed a Duty to Plaintiff Injured When the Packaging Failed Under Negligence, Strict Products Liability and Contractual Theories

Plaintiff was injured when the packaging of a product failed. The product was manufactured pursuant to a contract between plaintiff’s employer and one manufacturer, ABS. ABS contracted with a second manufacturer, Keystone, to nickel-plate the product.  Both manufacturers were responsible for aspects of the product’s packaging.  The Fourth Department determined that the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Both owed a duty to plaintiff under negligence and strict products liability theories. In addition, ABS owed a duty to the plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract with plaintiff’s employer. And Keystone owed a contractual duty to the plaintiff as well because, although there was no third-party beneficiary relationship, Keystone had launched an instrument of harm.  Filer v Keystone Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03628, 4th Dept 5-1-15

 

,

Leasing Company Which Never Had Possession of the Product (Here a Garbage Truck) and Which Was a Financial Arm of the Purchaser, Not the Manufacturer, of the Product, Entitled to Dismissal of Strict Products Liability Cause of Action/However, a Question of Fact Was Raised Whether the Finance Lessor Was Liable for Failure to Inspect the Product on the Ground It Had Designated an Agent for Inspection on Its Behalf

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability cause of action against a “finance lessor” of a garbage truck, H Leasing Company.  The lawsuit stemmed from an accident involving the truck.  The court explained that a strict products liability action will not lie against a “finance lessor” which is not in the business of leasing equipment to the general public, which never had possession of the leased equipment, which was not a financial arm of the manufacturer, and which neither marketed the product nor placed it in the stream of commerce.  Here H Leasing Company was a financial arm of the purchaser of the truck:

“It appears universally accepted as New York law that strict products liability will not apply to finance lessors which merely offer the use of money to acquire goods but otherwise neither market a product nor place it in the stream of commerce” … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that H Leasing is the owner and lessor of the truck, and it is therefore subject to strict products liability because it is in the business of leasing equipment. The cases permitting strict products liability actions against lessors involve leasing entities that either actually take possession of the equipment at issue and lease it to the public …, or are financing arms of the manufacturer … . In those situations, the principles of strict products liability may properly be applied to such lenders in order to further the policy goals of such liability, i.e., ensuring that products are safe by permitting an action to go forward “when imposing liability would provide injured consumers with a greater opportunity to commence an action against the party responsible, fix liability on one who is in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to improve the safety of the product, or ensure that the burden of accidental injuries occasioned by products would be treated as a cost of production by placing liability upon those who market them” … . Such goals would not be served by allowing a strict products liability cause of action against H Leasing, however, because it did not take possession of the truck, it is not in the business of leasing equipment to the general public, and it is a financial arm of the purchaser of the truck, not the manufacturer … . Consequently, we agree with H Leasing “that strict products liability should not be imposed upon [it], a finance lessor which merely offered the use of money and neither marketed the machine nor placed it in the stream of commerce” … . Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg Inc, 2015NY Slip Op 00001, 4th Dept 1-2-15

In a separate decision in the same case, again over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined that a cause of action against H Leasing alleging negligent failure to inspect the truck properly survived a summary judgment motion.  The allegation that H Leasing designated the company which leased the truck as its agent for the inspection of the truck raised a triable question of fact:

Here, the lease for the garbage truck, which was submitted in support of H Leasing’s motion for summary judgment, stated in relevant part that H Leasing appointed decedent’s employer as its agent for purposes of inspection and acceptance of the garbage truck from the supplier. Moreover, a vice-president of H Leasing, who was decedent’s employer, acknowledged at his deposition, that the lessees inspected the equipment upon delivery in their capacities as H Leasing’s agents as “laid out in the lease agreement,” and that deposition testimony was also submitted in support of H Leasing’s motion. Viewing those submissions in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every reasonable inference, we conclude that H Leasing’s own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether it was liable in negligence for the failure of one of its agents, decedent’s employer, to inspect and warn of a dangerous condition. Houston v McNeilus Truck & Mfg Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00002, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Forklift Manufacturer Properly Dismissed Due to Owner’s Disabling Safety Switch/Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was a Special Employee of the Owner of the Forklift (Which Would Limit Plaintiff’s Recovery to Workers’ Compensation)

Plaintiff was injured by a forklift which continued running when he was out of the driver’s seat because the safety switch (which would have automatically shut the forklift off when the driver left the seat) had been disabled by the owner of the forklift.  The Fourth Department determined the strict products liablity cause of action against the manufacturer of the forklift was properly dismissed because the safety switch had been disabled. But the negligence cause of action against the owner of the forklift, Nuttall Gear, should not have been dismissed.  Nuttal Gear argued plaintiff was its special employee and therefore Workers’ Compensation was the exclusive remedy.  The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff was a special employee. It was not clear that Nuttal Gear supervised plaintiff’s work:

We conclude that the court properly granted the motions of the products liability defendants. As the Court of Appeals has recently made clear, ” a manufacturer, who has designed and produced a safe product, will not be liable for injuries resulting from substantial alterations or modifications of the product by a third party which render the product defective or otherwise unsafe’ ” … . Here, the products liability defendants established as a matter of law that the forklift was not defectively designed by establishing that, when it was manufactured and delivered to Nuttall Gear, it had a safety switch that would have prevented plaintiff’s accident, and a third party thereafter made a substantial modification to the forklift by disabling the safety switch. The burden thus shifted to plaintiffs to raise an issue of fact, and they failed to meet that burden … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the affidavit of their expert, a professional engineer, does not raise a triable issue of fact.

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that the court erred in granting the motion of the Nuttall Gear defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. It is well settled that “a general employee of one employer may also be in the special employ of another, notwithstanding the general employer’s responsibility for payment of wages and for maintaining workers’ compensation and other employee benefits” … . “A special employee is described as one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another . . . General employment is presumed to continue, but this presumption is overcome upon clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” … . Although the determination of special employment status is “usually a question of fact,” such a determination “may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact” … . * * *

It appears from the record that the only person who had contact with plaintiff at Nuttall Gear was Mark Moscato, who himself was a general employee of SPS [plaintiff’s employer]. The Nuttall Gear defendants have not identified a single person, other than Moscato, who told plaintiff what to do or how to do it.  Verost v Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 0008, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, , ,

The Kinds of Damages Recoverable in a Property-Damage Action Stemming from Allegedly Defective Doors and Windows Explained in Some Depth—Economic Loss Rule Re: Strict Products Liability and Negligence—Consequential and Special Damages Re: Contract—When an Issue Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal Explained

In an action stemming from allegedly defective windows and doors which allowed the intrusion of water, the Second Department sorted out the interplay between tort claims and contract claims and the types of damages recoverable under each legal theory.  Among the issues discussed in some depth: the economic loss rule re: strict products liability and negligence; and consequential and special damages re: contract.  The court noted that the “economic loss rule” issue was raised for the first time on appeal and then explained why it still could consider the argument:

…[W]e note that the appellant did not raise before the Supreme Court its contention that the causes of action to recover damages for negligence and based on strict products liability insofar as asserted against it are barred by the economic loss rule. Nevertheless, this is a purely legal argument that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided had it been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. Thus, the issue may be considered by this Court even though it is being raised for the first time on appeal… .

“The economic loss rule provides that tort recovery in strict products liability and negligence against a manufacturer is not available to a downstream purchaser where the claimed losses flow from damage to the property that is the subject of the contract and personal injury is not alleged or at issue” … . The rule is applicable to economic losses to the product itself as well as consequential damages resulting from the defect … . Therefore, when a plaintiff seeks to recover damages for purely economic loss related to the failure or malfunction of a product, such as the cost of replacing or retrofitting the product, or for damage to the product itself, the plaintiff may not seek recovery in tort against the manufacturer or the distributor of the product, but is limited to a recovery sounding in breach of contract or breach of warranty … .

Here, the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that it sustained economic losses generated by the repair and replacement of the glass doors and windows of a building due to the failure of such doors and windows to properly prevent water intrusion. The fabrication and/or installation of those doors and windows were the subject of its agreement with the appellant. To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to recover losses generated by the repair and replacement of these doors and windows pursuant to causes of action sounding in negligence or strict products liability, such causes of action are prohibited by the economic loss rule. …

However, the plaintiff also claims that the intrusion of water caused by the defective windows and doors resulted in injury to other structural elements of the building, such as flooring and walls. These losses constitute damage to “other property” that was not the subject of the parties’ agreement and, accordingly, support a valid tort cause of action … . We note that, while the other structural elements of the building may have been damaged as a consequence of the infiltration of water through allegedly defective windows and doors, such losses do not constitute “consequential damages,” also known as “special damages,” as that term is used in contract law. Consequential or special damages usually refer to loss of expected profits or economic opportunity caused by a breach of contract … . ). Although the plaintiff may not recover such traditional consequential contract damages pursuant to a tort cause of action, the complaint does state causes of action against the appellant to recover damages for negligence and based on strict products liability to the extent that those causes of action seek to recover damages for injury to structural elements of the building other than the allegedly defective windows and doors themselves, which were the subject of the parties’ contract… . 126 Newton St LLC v Allbrand Commercial Windows and Doors Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06563, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

,

Where the Manufacturer Was Not At Fault in a Products Liability Action, the Retailer Is Not Entitled to Indemnification for the Costs of Defending the Action from the Manufacturer

The Fourth Department determined a downstream retailer (GE) was not entitled to indemnification from and upstream manufacturer (Carrier) when both have been absolved of fault in a products liability action.  The basis of the action was a fire which was alleged to have been caused by an air conditioner manufactured by Carrier and marketed and sold by GE.  It was ultimately determined the fire was not caused by the air conditioner.  GE sought indemnification from Carrier for the costs associated with the lawsuit:

The issue in this case is whether GE, a downstream retailer, is entitled to recoup its costs in defending a products liability action from Carrier, an upstream manufacturer, when they both are ultimately absolved of liability. We conclude that GE is not entitled to recoupment, and we therefore affirm.

Indemnification is grounded in the equitable principle that the party who has committed a wrong should pay for the consequences of that wrong … . Thus, New York courts have consistently held that “common-law indemnification lies only against those who are actually at fault” …, i.e., the “actual wrongdoer” … . In the products liability context, a manufacturer is held accountable as a “wrongdoer” when it releases a defective product into the stream of commerce …, and “innocent” sellers who merely distribute the defective product are entitled to indemnification from the at-fault manufacturer … . That common-law right of indemnification “encompasses the right to recover attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in connection with defending the suit brought by the injured party” … . * * *

Where, as here, it is ultimately determined that the subject product is free from defect, there is no “fault” or “wrongdoing” on the part of the manufacturer… . Bigelow v General Elec Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05727, 2nd Dept 8-8-14

 

, , , , , ,

County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical Contamination of Its Wells—CPLR 214-c Governs Actions Based Upon Contamination—Action Was Untimely

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, determined that the plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) had standing to bring a negligence/nuisance/trespass/products liability action against defendants alleging contamination of wells caused by chemicals (PCE and TCE).  However, the court determined the action was barred as untimely by CPLR 214-c.  In the course of the opinion, the court explained what the “two-injury” rule is in the context of a continuing wrong.  The court determined that CPLR 214-c was designed to eliminate the continuing-wrong statute of limitations calculation in contamination cases.  In addition, the court explained the difference between latent and patent injuries with respect to CPLR 214-c:

Generally, a plaintiff has standing to sue if it has suffered an injury in fact … in some way different from that of the public at large and within the zone of interests to be protected by relevant statutory and regulatory provisions … .

We reject the movants’ contention that the SCWA lacked standing to seek damages for injury to 115 wells where the PCE contamination level fell below the MCL (federal and state “maximum contamination level” for PCE). The MCL is only a regulatory standard which governs conduct in supplying water to the public. While the MCL may be helpful in determining whether an injury has occurred, the MCL does not set a bar below which an injury cannot have occurred … . Similarly, the MCL does not define whether an injury has occurred, since contamination below that level could result in some injury, such as increased monitoring costs … . It is undisputed that the SCWA has expended resources in its effort to address the widespread contamination, even at wells where the contamination has not risen to or exceeded the MCL. Thus, the SCWA has alleged that it has suffered an injury for which it may seek redress, irrespective of the level of contamination. * * *

CPLR 214-c was enacted in 1986 to ameliorate the effect of a line of cases which held that toxic tort claims accrued upon the impact or exposure to the substance, even though the resulting injury or illness did not manifest itself until some time later … . CPLR 214-c provides for a three-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property “caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property” (CPLR 214-c[2]). The three-year period is “computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-c[2]…). For the purposes of CPLR 214-c, “discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … . Suffolk County Water Auth v Dow Chem Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05420, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

,

Reversible Error to Give a Modified Malpractice Jury Instruction in a Negligent/Defective Design Case

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, reversed a $10 million judgment against Volvo, finding that one of the jury instructions, which was a modified version of the jury instruction for a malpractice case, should not have been given.  The plaintiff lost a leg when the ignition of the manual transmission car was switched on and the car lurched forward, pinning the plaintiff.  A central issue in the trial was whether the car should have been equipped with a device which would have prevented the car from starting when it was in gear.  In addition to the jury instruction issue, the court discussed the redundancy of instructions for negligent design and defective design, the appeal as of right and by permission pursuant to CPLR 5601 and 5602, and the inconsistency of the verdict.  With respect to the malpractice jury instruction, the court wrote:

[PJI 2:15] should not have been given in this case. It was designed for malpractice cases. As the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions says: “The principle stated in the pattern charge is the underlying basis of malpractice actions” (1A NY PJI3d 2:15 at 259 [2014]). The Committee goes on to say that “[t]he principle extends to skilled trades and to professions not generally thought of in connection with malpractice” (id.), but we know of no basis for including automobile manufacturers in that category. This is not a malpractice case, but a negligent design or (what amounts to the same thing) a design defect case.

PJI 2:15 is reserved for malpractice cases because the standards of care applicable to malpractice cases and to other negligence cases are different. In a malpractice case against, for example, a doctor or a lawyer, the defendant is generally held to the level of skill and care used by others in the community who practice the same profession … . In negligence cases generally, by contrast, the jury must compare the defendant's conduct to that of a reasonable person under like circumstances (Restatement [Second] of Torts § 283…). In negligent design/design defect cases, the reasonable-person standard has been given more specific form: the question is whether the product is one as to which “if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner” … .  Reis v Volvo Cars of N Am, 2014 NY Slip Op 04880, CtApp 7-1-14

 

, ,

General Municipal Law 205-a and Strict Products Liability Causes of Action Brought by Firefighter Injured During a Fire Survive Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions

The Third Department determined motions for summary judgment by the owners of a building and the manufacturer of a device used to locate firefighters in an emergency were properly denied.  Plaintiff (Dryer) was a firefighter severely injured when a ceiling collapsed on him while he was searching for a fire within the building.  It was alleged the fire was related to violations of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the “PASS” device which was supposed to facilitate the locating of a firefighter malfunctioned.  Questions of fact were raised re: the General Municipal Law 205-a and strict products liability causes of action:

General Municipal Law § 205-a creates a statutory cause of action for firefighters who are injured in the line of duty “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any [federal, state or local] . . . statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements” (General Municipal Law § 205-a [1]…). “To fall within the protective scope of the statute and defeat a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff seeking recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-a must identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter” … . * * *

…[W]e [are not] persuaded that Supreme Court erred in denying the owners’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the General Municipal Law § 205-a cause of action. In this regard, the owners bore the initial burden of establishing either that they did not violate any relevant governmental provision or, if they did, that such violation did not directly or indirectly cause Dryer’s injuries … . The “directly or indirectly” language employed in General Municipal Law § 205-a “has been accorded broad application by the courts, ‘in light of the clear legislative intent to offer firefighters greater protections'” … . * * *

“In order to recover in a strict products liability action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant manufactured for sale, or sold, distributed, leased, or otherwise marketed a product, that the product was defective, that the plaintiff was injured and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the [plaintiff’s] injury” … . The requisite defect, in turn, may stem from “a manufacturing flaw, improper design or failure to warn” … . Dryer v Musacchio, 2014 NY Slip Op 02986, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

, ,

Untimely ​Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Related Back to Timely Negligent Design Cause of Action—Motion to Amend Pleadings to Add Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Lessor of Heavy Equipment Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to assert a strict products liability cause of action against the lessor of heavy equipment.  Plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fallen from a slippery surface on the heavy equipment.  The court noted the untimely strict products liability claim was nearly identical to the negligent design cause of action which had been timely alleged:

A commercial lessor may be held liable, even in the absence of fault, for injuries caused by a defective product that the lessor is in the business of leasing … . Leave to amend is to be freely granted “at any time,” so long as there is no prejudice or surprise to the other party (CPLR 3025 [b]…), “and the amendment is not plainly lacking in merit” … .

Although plaintiffs did not seek to amend the complaint until four years after the commencement of the action, [defendant] has not identified any actual prejudice or valid claim of surprise. The proposed amendment is not based on new facts and there is “almost no difference” between negligence and strict products liability claims based on defective design … . Given the functionally synonymous nature of the claims, we conclude that the complaint provided adequate notice of the necessary elements and the proposed amendment relates back to the timely interposition of the negligence claim (see CPLR 203 [f]…). Furthermore, the strict products liability claim cannot be said to be plainly lacking in merit as plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a certified safety professional who opined that the slippery surface of the excavator was unreasonably dangerous, described why and explained how it could have been made safer … . Stokes v Komatsu Am Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 02997, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

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