Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

Court of Appeals of New York
2010 NY Slip Op 09198 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a defective design products liability action, a defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating with evidence that the product is reasonably safe for its intended use, meaning its utility outweighs its inherent danger; merely asserting in an attorney's affirmation that a product is inherently dangerous and its dangers are well known is insufficient to meet this burden.

Facts:

Yun Tung Chow, a restaurant worker who could not read English, used a product named Lewis Red Devil Lye (RDL) to clear clogged drains.
RDL is a drain cleaner consisting of 100% sodium hydroxide (lye) crystals.
Chow learned how to use RDL by observing others, not by reading the product's warning label.
On the day of the incident, Chow mixed approximately three spoonfuls of the remaining RDL with three cups of cold water in a dry aluminum container.
Mixing lye with aluminum was contrary to the product's specific instructions.
Chow then poured this solution into a clogged kitchen floor drain.
Immediately after he poured it, the solution violently erupted from the drain and splashed onto his face.
As a result of the chemical burns, Chow sustained serious injuries, including the loss of sight in his left eye.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Yun Tung Chow and his wife sued the defendants in New York Supreme Court (the trial court) for products liability.
Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case.
The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department (an intermediate appellate court).
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal, with two justices dissenting on the defective design claim.
Based on the dissent, plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a defective design products liability case, does a defendant meet its initial burden for summary judgment by merely asserting that its product is inherently dangerous and its dangers are well known, without presenting evidence that the product's utility outweighs its risk?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Lippman

No. In a defective design case, a defendant moving for summary judgment must do more than claim its product is inherently dangerous; it must affirmatively demonstrate that the product is reasonably safe for its intended use by showing that the product's utility outweighs its inherent danger. Defendants failed to meet this initial burden. The central question in a design defect claim is whether a product's utility outweighs the danger inherent in its introduction into commerce. Defendants did not address this risk-utility balance, instead relying on the argument that lye is inherently dangerous and that plaintiff misused the product. However, a plaintiff's misuse of a product does not entitle a defendant to summary judgment unless that misuse was the sole proximate cause of the injury. A fact-finder could conclude that RDL was so inherently dangerous that it should not have been marketed to laypersons, irrespective of the warnings or the plaintiff's misuse.

Concurring - Judge Smith

No. While I agree with the outcome, it is dictated by New York's specific procedural rule for summary judgment, not the merits of the plaintiff's case. Under New York law, the moving party on summary judgment has the initial burden to make an evidentiary showing of its entitlement to judgment. Here, defendants failed to produce any evidence, such as an expert affidavit, to show the absence of a safer, functionally equivalent alternative to their product. This failure means their motion must be denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers, which were admittedly weak. This contrasts with the federal rule established in Celotex, where a movant can succeed by simply pointing out the non-movant's lack of evidence on an issue for which they would bear the burden at trial.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the stringent initial burden placed on defendants moving for summary judgment in New York products liability cases. It clarifies that a manufacturer cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by relying on a product's "open and obvious" danger. Instead, the defendant must affirmatively produce evidence addressing the risk-utility balance, effectively requiring them to build a portion of their trial defense at the summary judgment stage. This decision makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain early dismissal of defective design claims in New York courts compared to the federal system, ensuring more cases proceed toward trial where a jury can weigh the evidence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc. (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature