Product Liability

Published on: June 19, 2025

Product Design Liability and Circular Saws. Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, product liability law allows an injured person to bring a lawsuit when a product causes harm because it was not reasonably safe. One type of claim involves defective design. In these cases, courts ask whether the product’s design created an unreasonable risk of harm when used as intended. Even when a product functions correctly, it may still be unsafe if a safer design was available at a reasonable cost. This case involved a circular saw and whether it had a design that made it unsafe to use, even though the safety guard worked as intended.

Background Facts

The plaintiff used a circular power saw made by Black & Decker to cut wood for a home project. He stood in his driveway, cutting 2×4 boards on sawhorses. He held the saw in his right hand and braced the wood with his left. The saw had a guard over the blade that retracted when cutting and was supposed to return to a closed position when not in use.

Published on: April 20, 2025

When Can a Product Be Defective Under Warranty But Not Strict Liability? Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 11, 2025

Injury Claims Denied in Baler Machine Case Due to Modification. Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 175 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 3, 2025

Was General Motors Liable for the Design of the 1973 Chevrolet Malibu? Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: March 7, 2025

Was General Motors Liable for the Design of the 1973 Chevrolet Malibu? Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 17, 2024

Liability for police dog bite. Relf v. City of Troy, 169 A.D.3d 1223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Excessive force refers to the application of force by law enforcement officers that exceeds what is reasonably necessary to effectively control a situation, prevent harm, or make an arrest. While officers are permitted to use force in certain circumstances, such as when facing resistance or threats to safety, the force used must be proportionate to the threat posed. Determining whether force is excessive involves a careful consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the alleged crime, the behavior of the individual, and the risk of danger to officers and others.

In cases involving excessive force, courts typically apply an objective reasonableness standard, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989). This standard evaluates the actions of the officer from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the information known to the officer at the time of the incident. Factors such as the threat posed by the individual, the availability of alternative methods, and the need for immediate action are all taken into account.

In Relf v. City of Troy, the court was tasked with applying this standard to the actions of a police dog, which is considered a tool of law enforcement. Just as with human officers, the use of a police dog’s force must be reasonable under the circumstances. This includes considerations such as the dog’s training, the handler’s supervision, and the foreseeability of harm to innocent bystanders.

Published on: August 7, 2023

Court considered a product liability claim based on an injury from a table saw. Whitaker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 120 A.D.3d 865 (2d Dep’t 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Whitaker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. is a product liability case that was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York in 2014. The case involved a plaintiff, Michael Whitaker, who was injured while using a table saw that he had purchased from Sears. The decision of the court in this case is important because it provides guidance on the extent of a manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers about the dangers associated with their products.

Factual Background

In 2003, Michael Whitaker purchased a table saw from Sears. The table saw was designed and manufactured by Rexon Industrial Corp., a Taiwanese company. The saw was sold under the Craftsman brand, which is owned by Sears. The saw came equipped with a blade guard and anti-kickback pawls, which are safety features designed to prevent serious injuries.

Published on: August 2, 2023

Appellate Court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether a bottle of acetaminophen was defective. Kelly v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1019 (2d Dep’t 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

Product liability cases arise when a product causes harm or injury to a consumer due to a defect in its design, manufacturing, or labeling. In such cases, the manufacturer or seller may be held liable for the damages caused. Product liability cases are complex and require the expertise of an experienced New York product liability lawyer. The case of Kelly v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is one such example where the plaintiff filed a product liability claim against CVS Pharmacy claiming that she sustained injuries due to a defective product.

To prove a defective product case, a plaintiff typically needs to demonstrate that the product in question was unreasonably dangerous due to a design flaw, manufacturing defect, or inadequate warning. The plaintiff must show that they suffered an injury or damages as a direct result of the product’s defect. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that the product was being used in a foreseeable manner at the time of the injury, meaning that the product was being used as it was intended or in a way that was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. To establish liability, the plaintiff must identify the party responsible for the defect, which may include the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of the product. To prove the defect, the plaintiff may rely on expert testimony, product testing, or other evidence that establishes that the product was unreasonably dangerous. If the plaintiff is successful in proving their case, they may be entitled to recover damages for their injuries, including compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Factual Background

Published on: July 31, 2023

Appellate Division determined that plaintiff presented enough evidence to proceed with her product liability claim. Ippolito v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 121 A.D.3d 529 (2d Dep’t 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Ippolito v. Sears Roebuck & Co., the plaintiff, Linda Ippolito, alleged that she was injured by a defective product that she purchased from Sears Roebuck & Co. This case demonstrates the importance of product liability law and the duty that manufacturers and sellers have to ensure the safety of their products.

A product liability case is a legal case brought against a manufacturer, seller, or distributor of a product that has caused harm or injury to a consumer. The basis for the case is that the product is considered defective, either due to a design flaw, manufacturing defect, or a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions for use. In a product liability case, the injured party seeks compensation for their injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. These cases can be complex and often require the assistance of an experienced New York product liability lawyer with expertise in product liability law.

Factual Background