Fisher v. Flanigan
89 A.D.3d 1398, 932 N.Y.2d 272 (2011)
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer generally has no duty to warn of open and obvious risks, especially when the injured party has actual knowledge of the specific hazard. A product is not defectively designed if it is reasonably safe for its intended use, complies with applicable regulations and industry standards, and proposed alternative safety devices are not standard or mandated.
Facts:
- John C. Fisher fell and sustained injuries while walking in a motor home manufactured by Damon Corporation.
- The motor home was in motion at the time of Fisher's fall and was being driven by Kenneth Flanigan.
- Fisher had prior experience traveling in buses and subways, and he knew there was a risk of falling while those vehicles were in motion.
- The motor home was manufactured by Damon in 1998.
- The motor home's seats were equipped with seat belts in conformance with federal regulations, and the vehicle complied with all applicable regulations and industry standards when manufactured.
- The motor home's owner’s manual advised the owner that passengers should remain seated and restrained by a seat belt while the motor home was in motion.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, as power of attorney for John C. Fisher, commenced an action against Damon Corporation in Supreme Court, alleging strict products liability for failure to warn passengers to remain seated and for design defect, among other claims.
- Damon Corporation moved for summary judgment in Supreme Court to dismiss the amended complaint and all cross claims against it.
- Supreme Court denied the part of Damon's motion concerning the strict products liability cause of action for failure to warn.
- Supreme Court granted the part of Damon's motion concerning the design defect cause of action.
- The Supreme Court's failure to rule on the cross claim for contribution or indemnification was deemed a denial of that part of the motion.
- Damon appealed from the denial of its motion for summary judgment on the failure to warn claim and the deemed denial of its motion regarding cross claims.
- Plaintiff cross-appealed from the grant of summary judgment on the design defect claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a manufacturer have a duty to warn passengers about the open and obvious risk of falling while moving about in a moving motor home, especially when the passenger has personal experience and knowledge of such risks in similar vehicles? 2. Is a motor home defectively designed for failing to include additional safety devices (such as grab handles or auditory warnings) that are not required by federal regulations or industry standards, even if the manufacturer is aware that passengers might move about while the vehicle is in motion?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum
No, a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn passengers about the open and obvious risk of falling while moving about in a moving motor home when the passenger already has personal knowledge of such risks. Additionally, no, the motor home was not defectively designed for lacking unmandated safety devices because it was reasonably safe for its intended use and complied with all applicable regulations and industry standards at the time of manufacture. Regarding the failure to warn claim, the court concluded that Damon established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because the risk of falling while moving in a moving vehicle is open and obvious. Citing Liriano v Hobart Corp., the court noted that a manufacturer's duty to warn of unintended but foreseeable uses can be obviated where a warning would be superfluous given the injured party's actual knowledge of the specific hazard. Fisher's deposition testimony revealed his experience with buses and subways and his knowledge of the risk of falling in moving vehicles, indicating that a warning would have added nothing to his appreciation of the danger. His subsequent affidavit claiming he thought it was 'customary and acceptable' to move about did not negate his prior acknowledgment of the open and obvious danger. Plaintiff's expert affidavits failed to raise a sufficient issue of fact, either conceding the obviousness of the risk or offering conclusory statements. Regarding the design defect claim, the court found that Damon established as a matter of law that the motor home was designed to be reasonably safe for its intended use. Citing Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp. and Adams v Genie Indus., Inc., the court emphasized that design defect claims are assessed based on the product's configuration at the time it leaves the manufacturer's hands. Damon demonstrated that the motor home complied with federal regulations and industry standards in 1998, with seats equipped with seat belts, and the owner’s manual advised passengers to remain seated. The plaintiff's proposed safety devices (grab devices, auditory warnings) were not part of regulations or industry standards and were not used in the motor home industry. Plaintiff's experts' opinions were dismissed as conclusory, failing to demonstrate the product was not reasonably safe for its intended use. Finally, given the dismissal of the claims against Damon, the court also granted Damon’s motion with respect to the cross claims for contribution or indemnification.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'open and obvious' doctrine in New York product liability law, limiting a manufacturer's duty to warn when risks are commonly understood or personally known by the user. It underscores the critical role of compliance with regulatory and industry standards in defending against design defect claims, making it difficult to prove a defect for features not mandated or common in the industry. The decision also highlights that conclusory expert opinions, without specific factual or industry backing, are insufficient to defeat summary judgment, requiring plaintiffs to present more substantive evidence to demonstrate a product's unreasonableness or a non-obvious danger.
