Articles Posted in Product Liability

In product liability law, plaintiffs often sue under both strict products liability and breach of implied warranty. In Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a manufacturer could be held liable under one theory but not the other. The court clarified that the two causes of action are distinct and can lead to different outcomes based on the facts presented. The decision offered guidance for product liability lawsuits in New York.

Background Facts

In 1986, Nancy Denny was injured when her Ford Bronco II rolled over while she was trying to avoid hitting a deer. Denny and her husband filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. They claimed that the vehicle’s design made it more likely to roll over, and that Ford breached the implied warranty of merchantability and was strictly liable for the design defect.

In product liability cases, courts often examine how a product was used at the time of the accident and whether it had been changed from its original condition. In the case of Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc., the court had to decide whether a manufacturer could be held responsible for injuries caused by a machine that had been altered after it was sold. The court also reviewed whether the manufacturer had failed to provide proper warnings. This blog reviews how the court handled the claims, the evidence presented, and what the decision means for similar product liability claims in New York.

Background Facts

Frank Cacciola was injured on December 3, 1996, while using a baler machine at his workplace, a Pepsi Cola plant in Brooklyn, New York. The baler was used to compress cardboard boxes and had a safety feature known as an interlock switch. This switch prevented the machine from operating if the safety gate was open. On the day of the incident, the interlock switch had been disabled with wire, allowing the machine to run even when the safety gate was open.

In Cover v. Cohen, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether a car manufactured by General Motors was defective under strict products liability. The case also considered whether the evidence presented at trial was proper and whether the judgment against both General Motors and the car dealer, Kinney Motors, should stand. The court’s decision clarified how post-manufacture safety standards and later modifications may be treated in a design defect claim.

Background Facts

In June 1974, Irving Cohen was operating a 1973 Chevrolet Malibu. He had purchased the vehicle from Kinney Motors in October 1972. According to Cohen, while attempting to parallel park on a Brooklyn street, he placed the car in reverse when it suddenly accelerated backward. He claimed the car would not stop despite having his foot on the brake. The car traveled 70 feet in reverse, mounted a curb, and struck a building.

In Cover v. Cohen, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether a car manufactured by General Motors was defective under strict products liability. The case also considered whether the evidence presented at trial was proper and whether the judgment against both General Motors and the car dealer, Kinney Motors, should stand. The court’s decision clarified how post-manufacture safety standards and later modifications may be treated in a design defect claim.

Background Facts

In June 1974, Irving Cohen was operating a 1973 Chevrolet Malibu. He had purchased the vehicle from Kinney Motors in October 1972. According to Cohen, while attempting to parallel park on a Brooklyn street, he placed the car in reverse when it suddenly accelerated backward. He claimed the car would not stop despite having his foot on the brake. The car traveled 70 feet in reverse, mounted a curb, and struck a building.