Pierre-Louis v. DeLonghi Am., Inc. - 2009 NY Slip Op 7609, 66 A.D.3d 859, 887 N.Y.S.2d 628 (App. Div. 2nd Dept.)

Rule:

To establish a prima facie case in a strict products liability action predicated on a design defect, a plaintiff must show that the manufacturer marketed a product which was not reasonably safe in its design, that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner, and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury.

Facts:

This appeal arises from a fire that occurred on January 13, 2003 at the home of Antoneen Darden-McCall, sued herein as Antoneen Darden and Antoneen McCall (hereinafter Darden), which took the life of Cassandra Pierre-Louis (hereafter the decedent). On the day of the fire, the decedent was a guest of Darden's son, the defendant Marques McCall, also known as Marcus McCall (hereafter Marques). According to the New York City Fire Department, a portable oil-filled space heater, manufactured by the defendant DeLonghi America, Inc. (hereafter DeLonghi), sold by the defendant Home Depot, Inc. (hereafter Home Depot), and purchased by Darden the day before the fire, caused the subject fire. Darden's other son, the defendant Matthew McCall (hereafter Matthew), had taken the heater out of the box when it was brought home, and, unintentionally, placed it upside down. It is undisputed that he was the only user of the subject heater prior to the fire.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, DeLonghi and Home Depot, seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, alleging causes of action sounding in strict products liability. The plaintiff alleged that the heater was defectively manufactured and/or designed, and alleged a failure to warn regarding the use of the heater. DeLonghi and Home Depot (hereafter together the movants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the motion. DeLonghi and Home Depot appealed.

Issue:

Were DeLonghi and Home Depot able to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with regard to the manufacturing defect claims?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court found that DeLonghi and Home Depot failed to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with regard to the manufacturing defect claims. The expert of DeLonghi and Home Depot admitted that welds in the heater model would breech and oil would spurt out when the heater was operated in the upside down position. Further, DeLonghi’s own president admitted that it was reasonably foreseeable that the heater would be operated in the upside down position, and specifically knew that the subject heater had previously been operated in such manner by users for a number of years before the subject fire. The representative established the existence of triable issues of fact as to the design defect claims, through the opinions submitted by her two experts. Under such circumstances, it was usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis. As to the failure-to-warn claims, the son testified that there were no warnings which came with the heater.