New York Law Review

Tag: Voss v. Black & Decker

  • Voss v. Black & Decker, 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1987): Manufacturer Liability for Defective Toys and Foreseeable Misuse

    Voss v. Black & Decker, 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1987)

    A manufacturer can be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective product when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose.

    Summary

    In Voss v. Black & Decker, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the liability of a toy manufacturer for injuries sustained by a child struck by a part of the toy. The plaintiffs argued that the toy, a doll resembling a cartoon character known for throwing a shield, was defective due to its design and lack of adequate warnings. The court held that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to whether the toy was defective and whether the misuse (throwing the detachable part) was reasonably foreseeable, given the character’s television portrayal. This case underscores the duty of manufacturers to consider foreseeable misuse when designing and marketing products, especially those intended for children.

    Facts

    The infant plaintiff was injured when struck in the eye by a detachable part of a “Voltron-Defender of the Universe” doll, thrown by another child. The doll was a replica of a television cartoon character who used a shield as a weapon. The detachable part was described as a spinning shield, blade, or star. The toy was marketed for children age four and older. The plaintiffs alleged the toy was defective because of improper design and inadequate warnings.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiffs instituted an action to recover for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The lower court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to present a question for the jury as to whether the toy was defective and not reasonably safe for its intended use or reasonably foreseeable unintended use.

    Holding

    Yes, because the plaintiff submitted expert evidence that, based on customs and standards in the toy safety community, the detachable part was defective and that throwing the part was foreseeable because of the character’s extensive television exposure.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court stated the established rule: “A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose.” The court relied on expert evidence presented by the plaintiff. This evidence indicated that the detachable part was defective based on toy safety standards. The court emphasized the foreseeability of the misuse. It noted the television character’s frequent use of a similar object as a projectile. The court concluded that this evidence created a triable issue of fact. The jury had to determine whether the product was defective and whether the specific misuse was a reasonably foreseeable unintended use. The court implicitly emphasized the manufacturer’s responsibility to consider foreseeable misuse, particularly when designing toys for young children who may not fully understand the potential dangers. The absence of adequate warnings further contributed to the potential liability.

  • Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983): Manufacturer Liability and Foreseeability of Product Misuse

    Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983)

    A manufacturer is not liable for design defects if the misuse of the product that caused the injury was not foreseeable.

    Summary

    This case addresses the scope of a manufacturer’s liability for design defects when a product is misused. The plaintiff, injured while using a machine, sued the manufacturer, General Cable Corp., alleging a design defect. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the manufacturer had reason to know of the increased danger caused by the operator’s specific misuse (storing a tool in a particular manner). The court emphasized that foreseeability of the misuse is a critical element in establishing liability for design defects.

    Facts

    The plaintiff, Voss, sustained injuries while operating a machine manufactured by General Cable Corp. The injury occurred because of the way the operator stored a tool. The specific details of the machine and the tool storage method are not extensively detailed in the court’s memorandum, but the key fact is that the injury resulted from a particular manner of operation that was considered a misuse of the product.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff initially brought a design defect claim against the manufacturer. The Appellate Division ruled against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the design defect cause of action.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a manufacturer can be held liable for a design defect when the injury results from a misuse of the product, and the manufacturer had no reason to know of the increased danger caused by that particular misuse.

    Holding

    No, because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof that the defendant General Cable Corp. had reason to know of the increased danger by virtue of the operator’s storage of a tool in a particular manner.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the plaintiff’s claim failed due to a lack of evidence demonstrating that the manufacturer, General Cable Corp., could have reasonably foreseen the specific misuse that led to the plaintiff’s injury. The court referenced Robinson v Reed-Prentice, 49 NY2d 471, 479 and Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 386 to support the principle that a manufacturer’s liability for design defects hinges on the foreseeability of the risks associated with the product’s use. The court essentially stated that manufacturers are not insurers of their products and cannot be held liable for every conceivable misuse, especially those that are unforeseeable. The decision emphasizes a limitation on manufacturer liability, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the potential for the specific misuse that occurred. The court did not provide an in-depth analysis of dissenting or concurring opinions, but the decision was unanimous, as indicated by the concluding statement that all judges concurred in the memorandum.