100 N.Y.2d 38 (2003)
In a products liability case, a plaintiff can prove a defect circumstantially by showing the product did not perform as intended and excluding all other causes not attributable to the defendant, without necessarily identifying a specific flaw.
Summary
This case concerns a house fire that resulted in death and injuries. The plaintiffs sued Sears and Whirlpool, alleging a defective refrigerator caused the fire. The defendants argued a stovetop grease fire was the cause. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a defect in the refrigerator caused the fire, reversing the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The court emphasized that plaintiffs are not always required to identify a specific defect, and can proceed by excluding other possible causes.
Facts
Sandra Speller died and her son was injured in a house fire originating in the kitchen. The plaintiffs sued Sears (retailer) and Whirlpool (manufacturer), alleging the fire was caused by defective wiring in the refrigerator. The plaintiffs could not examine or test the wiring due to the fire damage. The defendants claimed a stovetop grease fire caused the blaze based on the Fire Marshal’s report.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Sears and Whirlpool, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific evidence of a defect after the defendants suggested an alternative cause. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether, in a products liability case where a specific defect cannot be identified, the plaintiff can withstand summary judgment by presenting circumstantial evidence that the product did not perform as intended and excluding other possible causes for the product’s failure.
Holding
Yes, because a plaintiff can prove a product defect circumstantially by showing the product did not perform as intended and excluding all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to the defendants.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle established in Codling v. Paglia, stating that a plaintiff “is not required to prove the specific defect” and that “[p]roof of necessary facts may be circumstantial.” To proceed without evidence of a specific flaw, a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude other causes not attributable to the defendants, as outlined in Halloran v. Virginia Chems. The court also cited the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 3, which allows inferring a defect if the incident ordinarily occurs due to a product defect and was not solely the result of other causes. The Court found the plaintiffs’ expert testimony sufficient to rebut the defendants’ alternative cause evidence. The experts consistently asserted the fire originated in the refrigerator and ruled out the stove. The Court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs were required to produce evidence of a specific defect after the defendants suggested an alternative cause, stating that this misinterprets the court’s role in summary judgment, which is issue identification, not issue resolution. The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate where causation is disputed and “only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts.”