Guadamud v. Dentsply International, Inc.
20 F. Supp. 2d 433 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a plaintiff is barred from recovering in tort for injuries sustained while voluntarily engaged in an illegal act, provided the act is a serious violation of the law and the injuries are a direct result of that violation.
Facts:
- Rosa Guadamud was trained and licensed as a dentist in Ecuador before moving to the United States in 1986.
- In 1991, Guadamud failed the first part of the National Board Examination in Dentistry, a requirement to enroll in a dental program at New York University.
- In 1993, Guadamud established her own dentistry practice in Brentwood, New York, despite not having a license to practice dentistry in New York State or anywhere else in the United States.
- The Dentsply Tooth Conditioner Gel, a syringe containing phosphoric acid, is a product dispensed only to licensed dentists for professional use.
- On April 8, 1994, while engaged in the unlicensed practice of dentistry, Guadamud used the Dentsply product without protective eyewear.
- The syringe allegedly exploded in Guadamud's hands, causing her severe injury.
- In 1995, Guadamud pleaded guilty in a separate state criminal proceeding to the charge of practicing dentistry without a license.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosa Guadamud filed a products liability action against Dentsply International, Inc. and B. Braun Medical, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Guadamud's illegal conduct barred her recovery.
- For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, the defendants conceded that their product was defective.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New York law, does a plaintiff's voluntary participation in the serious illegal act of practicing dentistry without a license bar her from recovering in tort for injuries sustained from a defective product used during that illegal practice?
Opinions:
Majority - Sifton, Chief Judge
Yes. A plaintiff is barred from recovering for injuries that are the direct result of her knowing and intentional participation in a serious criminal act. The court applied the two-part test from Barker v. Kallash, which asks if the illegal act was a 'serious violation' and if the injury was a 'direct result' of that violation. First, the court found that practicing dentistry without a license is a serious violation, classifying it as a Class E felony under New York's Education Law. It is a 'prohibitory' statute that bans the activity outright for unqualified individuals, not merely a 'regulatory' one. Second, the court determined that Guadamud's injuries were a direct result of her illegal act. Because the product was intended only for licensed dentists, she should never have been using it, and her injury occurred precisely because she was engaged in the forbidden activity of practicing dentistry without a license. Therefore, her own illegal conduct serves as a complete bar to her recovery.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Barker v. Kallash doctrine, which prevents a plaintiff from recovering for injuries sustained during the commission of a serious crime. The court's analysis firmly distinguishes between minor 'regulatory' infractions and 'prohibitory' statutes like the unlicensed practice of a profession, categorizing the latter as a serious violation that can preclude recovery. This case provides a strong precedent for defendants in product liability suits where the plaintiff was injured while misusing a professional-grade product during an illegal act, establishing that the plaintiff's criminal conduct can serve as a superseding cause of their injury, even if the product itself is defective.
