14 N.Y.3d 535 (2010)
To establish a design defect claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was not reasonably safe at the time of manufacture, considering the likelihood of harm, the feasibility of a safer design, and whether the utility of the product outweighed its risks.
Summary
Plaintiff, injured when a personnel lift tipped over, sued Genie Industries alleging defective design due to the lack of interlocked outriggers. The jury found Genie liable for defective design and negligence. Genie appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of a design defect and error in submitting a post-sale negligence claim to the jury. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the evidence supported the jury’s finding of a design defect, and any error in submitting the post-sale negligence claim was harmless. The court also clarified the rule regarding appeals after stipulations to additur or remittitur.
Facts
Genie Industries sold a personnel lift to the plaintiff’s employer in 1986. The lift included detachable outriggers intended to stabilize the lift during use, accompanied by a warning label stating that all outriggers must be installed before operating. In 1997, while using the lift to perform maintenance work approximately 12 feet above the ground, the plaintiff was injured when the lift tipped over because the outriggers were not in use and had been lost.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued Genie Industries, alleging negligence and defective design. The trial court submitted questions to the jury, who found Genie liable. The trial court denied Genie’s motion to set aside the verdict but granted the plaintiff’s motion for additur, increasing damages for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed. Genie stipulated to the additur and was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Genie, by stipulating to the additur ordered by the trial court, waived its right to appeal other issues in the case.
2. Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the personnel lift was defectively designed.
3. Whether the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of Genie’s post-sale negligence.
Holding
1. No, because Genie is not appealing the additur itself, but rather the underlying finding of liability. The court reexamined and rejected a broader application of a prior rule that would have barred the appeal.
2. Yes, because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the lift was not reasonably safe due to the absence of interlocked outriggers.
3. Yes, but the error was harmless because the post-sale negligence claim was essentially a duplicate of the design defect claim.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the right to appeal, the Court of Appeals reevaluated its prior holdings, specifically the rule established in Batavia Turf Farms v. County of Genesee, clarifying that a stipulation to damages does not forfeit all other appellate claims. The court reasoned that barring a party from raising legitimate appellate issues due to an unrelated agreement on damages is unfair and may operate as a trap. Thus, Genie was permitted to appeal the liability finding.
On the design defect claim, the court applied the standard from Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., requiring the plaintiff to show the product was not reasonably safe due to the likelihood of harm and the feasibility of a safer design. The court found sufficient evidence: expert testimony demonstrated the technological feasibility and minimal cost of interlocked outriggers in 1986; a former Genie employee testified about proposing the idea; and evidence showed Genie had purchased a competitor’s lift with interlocked outriggers. This evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the absence of interlocked outriggers rendered the product “not reasonably safe.” The court emphasized, “It will be for the jury to decide whether a product was not reasonably safe in light of all the evidence presented by both the plaintiff and defendant.”
Regarding the post-sale negligence claim, the court acknowledged that, generally, a seller’s duty after a sale is to warn of newly discovered risks. Since the trial court had already determined Genie’s warning label was adequate, submitting the post-sale conduct to the jury was erroneous. However, this error was deemed harmless because the post-sale negligence claim was duplicative of the design defect claim, and no new evidence was presented that uniquely pertained to the post-sale period. “Plaintiff presented no evidence of any facts that came to Genie’s attention after the sale that might have triggered a new duty; plaintiff merely asserted that Genie should have recalled or retrofitted the personnel lift for the same reasons that it should not have sold it in the first place—principally, because the outriggers were not interlocked.”