New York Law Review

Tag: defective design

  • Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 29 (2011): Establishing the Standard for Summary Judgment in Defective Design Cases Involving Inherently Dangerous Products

    17 N.Y.3d 29 (2011)

    A defendant moving for summary judgment in a defective design case involving an inherently dangerous product must demonstrate that the product is reasonably safe for its intended use, meaning its utility outweighs its inherent danger.

    Summary

    Yun Tung Chow sued Reckitt & Colman, Inc. for injuries sustained while using Lewis Red Devil Lye (RDL), a 100% sodium hydroxide drain cleaner. Chow, unable to read English, used the product incorrectly, resulting in severe burns and loss of sight in one eye. The defendants were granted summary judgment at the Supreme Court level, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendants, in seeking summary judgment on a defective design claim, failed to demonstrate that the product’s utility outweighed its inherent danger. The Court clarified that simply stating the product is inherently dangerous is insufficient; the defendant must prove the product is reasonably safe for its intended purpose.

    Facts

    Plaintiff, Yun Tung Chow, an employee at a restaurant, used Lewis Red Devil Lye (RDL) to unclog a drain. Chow was unable to read English and had learned how to use RDL by observing others. On the day of the incident, he mixed approximately three spoonfuls of RDL with roughly three cups of cold water in an aluminum container. He then poured the solution down the drain, which immediately splashed back onto his face. He sustained serious burns, resulting in the loss of sight in his left eye. The product’s label contained warnings and instructions for use, including the use of protective eyewear and gloves, advising against pouring the lye directly from the container into the drain, and specifying the use of a plastic spoon.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, but with a divided court on the defective design claim. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals as of right based on the dissent in the appellate division. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, in a defective design case involving an inherently dangerous product, a defendant moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that the product is reasonably safe for its intended use by proving its utility outweighs its inherent danger.

    Holding

    Yes, because a defendant moving for summary judgment in a defective design case must demonstrate that its product is reasonably safe for its intended use; a mere statement that the product is inherently dangerous is insufficient to warrant summary judgment.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that a product is defectively designed if its utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce. The Court emphasized that while RDL is undeniably dangerous, the defendants failed to demonstrate that its utility as a drain cleaner for laypersons outweighs the inherent risks. The Court stated that “a mere statement in an attorney’s affirmation in support of a motion for summary judgment to that effect does not result in a shift of the burden to plaintiff to then explain how RDL could be made safer.” The court also found that the plaintiff’s mishandling of the product was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries because a fact-finder could conclude that the product was so inherently dangerous that it should never have been marketed for use by a layperson. The court cited the risk-utility analysis, noting factors such as the product’s utility to the public, the likelihood of injury, and the availability of a safer design. The court noted, “Liability attaches when the product, as designed, presents an unreasonable risk of harm to the user”. Because the defendants failed to demonstrate that RDL was reasonably safe for its intended use, they were not entitled to summary judgment. The Court emphasized, even with adequate warnings, a product may be so dangerous, and its misuse so foreseeable, that a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing it.

  • Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc., 2 N.Y.3d 375 (2004): Optional Safety Features and Product Liability

    Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc., 2 N.Y.3d 375 (2004)

    A manufacturer can be liable for a defectively designed product that lacks an optional safety feature if the product is unreasonably dangerous without it in its normal use, despite the buyer’s knowledge and rejection of the feature.

    Summary

    Samuel Passante was injured while using a dock leveler at work. He sued the manufacturer (Rite-Hite) and seller (Mullen) arguing it was defectively designed by not including a trailer restraint system (Dok-Lok), an optional feature. The New York Court of Appeals held that summary judgment for the seller was inappropriate because the dock leveler posed an unreasonable risk of harm without the restraint system during normal use. This distinguished the case from prior precedent where the buyer’s informed decision to forego a safety feature shielded the manufacturer from liability. The court also reinstated a failure to warn claim, finding the existing warnings inadequate.

    Facts

    Passante, an employee of G&P Fresh Pac, was injured using a Rite-Hite dock leveler sold to G&P by Mullen. The dock leveler lacked a Dok-Lok trailer restraint system, an optional feature. Passante, weighing 140 pounds, had to stand on the leveler’s hinged lip to make it contact the trailer bed; the leveler was designed for a “150 pound walk down.” The trailer driver moved the truck prematurely, causing the lip to collapse and Passante to fall. G&P had declined to purchase the Dok-Lok system, partly due to cost and concerns about driver compliance.

    Procedural History

    Passante sued Rite-Hite, Mullen and G&P. Mullen moved for summary judgment, which Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint against Mullen. After this decision, Mullen moved for summary judgment dismissing Rite-Hite’s cross-claims, and Rite-Hite sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. Supreme Court dismissed Rite-Hite’s cross-claims without prejudice. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order upon plaintiff’s appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a product is defectively designed as a matter of law when it lacks an optional safety feature that the buyer knowingly declined to purchase?

    2. Whether the seller adequately warned users of the dock leveler of the dangers involved in its operation?

    Holding

    1. No, because the manufacturer and seller failed to demonstrate that the dock leveler was not unreasonably dangerous without the optional trailer restraint system during normal use.

    2. No, because there are triable issues of fact as to the sufficiency of the warnings provided concerning the equipment, particularly the danger of remaining on the lip after it engaged the trailer bed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished this case from Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, where a buyer’s informed decision to forego an optional safety feature relieved the manufacturer of liability. Scarangella requires considering whether: (1) the buyer is knowledgeable about the product and aware of the safety feature; (2) there exist normal circumstances where the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the feature; and (3) the buyer can balance the benefits and risks of not having the safety device. Here, while G&P was knowledgeable and aware of the Dok-Lok, the court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the dock leveler was not unreasonably dangerous without the trailer restraint system in its normal use. The Court relied on a Rite-Hite brochure describing the “Danger Zone” and the risk of trailers moving, as well as expert testimony regarding the risk from the collapsing lip. The court also found triable issues as to the adequacy of the warnings. Although a warning sheet was posted, it didn’t warn against remaining on the lip after it engaged the trailer. The court emphasized that “in cases where reasonable minds might disagree as to the extent of plaintiff’s knowledge of the hazard, the question is one for the jury.” The dissent argued that all three Scarangella factors were met, and the dock leveler was safe if used with proper precautions such as confirming the truck was off before use. They warned the decision eviscerated Scarangella, increased costs for manufacturers and distributors, and removed buyer’s options to refuse safety features.

  • Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992): Product Liability for Forklifts Marketed with Removable Safety Guards

    Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992)

    A product may be deemed ‘not reasonably safe’ if marketed in a condition (like with a removable safety guard) that permits foreseeable uses creating an unreasonable risk of harm, even if the product can be used safely with the guard in place.

    Summary

    This case concerns a product liability claim against the manufacturer of a forklift. The plaintiff was injured while operating the forklift without an overhead safety guard, which was designed to be removable. The Court of Appeals held that summary judgment for the defendant was inappropriate because there were triable issues of fact as to whether the forklift, as marketed with the removable guard, was “not reasonably safe” for its intended or reasonably anticipated uses. The Court distinguished this case from one involving material alterations to a safety device, emphasizing evidence suggesting the forklift was designed for use without the guard.

    Facts

    The plaintiff, Rastelli, was injured while operating a forklift manufactured by the defendant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    The forklift was originally equipped with an overhead safety guard, but this guard was removable.
    At the time of the accident, the forklift was being operated without the safety guard attached.
    The plaintiff argued the forklift was defectively designed because it could be operated without the safety guard, creating a risk of injury.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff sued Goodyear, alleging the forklift was defectively designed.
    The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the claim.
    The Appellate Division reversed, denying summary judgment and holding that triable issues of fact existed.
    Goodyear appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the manufacturer of a forklift is entitled to summary judgment in a product liability case when the forklift was marketed with a removable safety guard and the injury occurred while the forklift was operated without the guard.
    Whether the act of detaching a removable safety guard constitutes a material alteration that absolves the manufacturer of liability.

    Holding

    1. No, because there are triable issues of fact concerning whether the forklift, as marketed with the removable safety guard, was “not reasonably safe” for the uses intended or reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer.
    2. No, because simply detaching a removable safety guard, unlike a material alteration destroying a safety feature, does not automatically absolve the manufacturer of liability where there is evidence the product was designed to be used without the guard.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that a product can be considered “not reasonably safe” if it is marketed in a way that permits foreseeable uses that create an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court distinguished this case from Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div., where the safety device was materially altered, destroying its functional utility. Here, there was evidence suggesting the forklift was purposefully manufactured to permit its use without the safety guard. The court stated that unlike the situation in Robinson, this case involved no “[m]aterial alterations…which work[ed] a substantial change in the condition in which the product was sold by destroying the functional utility of a key safety feature.” The court emphasized the presence of “evidence in this record that the forklift was purposefully manufactured to permit its use without the safety guard.” Therefore, the question of whether the forklift was reasonably safe for its intended uses was a question of fact for a jury to decide. The court implies that manufacturers have a duty to consider the safety implications of features they design into their products, especially when those features allow for the product’s use in a potentially dangerous manner. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the memorandum opinion.