Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd.
146 A.D.2d 168, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4576, 539 N.Y.S.2d 922 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer may be held liable for design defect or failure to warn even if its product complies with federal safety standards, as questions of negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for a jury to decide, particularly when a toy's design and its media tie-in could foreseeably influence a child's dangerous misuse of the product.
Facts:
- LJN Toys, Ltd. (LJN) manufactured and distributed a toy called "Voltron — Defender of the Universe," marketed for children four years of age and older.
- The toy was based on a popular animated cartoon series where the Voltron character used a detachable, star-shaped "spinning laser blade" as a weapon, which he would throw at enemies.
- The Voltron toy included a detachable, star-shaped plastic part that was designed to look like the weapon from the cartoon.
- The toy's packaging contained no warnings or directions for use regarding the detachable parts.
- Brian Franks, an eight-year-old boy, was familiar with the Voltron cartoon series.
- On March 21, 1986, Brian Franks threw the detachable star-shaped part of the Voltron toy.
- The thrown part struck six-year-old Yessenia Lugo in her left eye, causing serious and permanent injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Yessenia Lugo's mother, on behalf of her daughter and in her own right, sued LJN Toys, Ltd. in the Supreme Court, Bronx County (a trial-level court).
- The complaint alleged negligence, design defect, and failure to warn, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- LJN Toys, Ltd. filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint entirely.
- The trial court denied LJN's motion for summary judgment.
- LJN Toys, Ltd., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's denial to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department (an intermediate appellate 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:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist regarding a toy manufacturer's liability for design defect and failure to warn when a child is injured by a detachable part of a toy that was allegedly thrown in a manner depicted in the toy's associated television show, thereby making summary judgment for the manufacturer improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Kassal, J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists, making summary judgment improper. Negligence cases involving claims of design defect and failure to warn are generally not suitable for summary judgment because the reasonableness of the parties' actions is a question for the jury. Plaintiffs met their burden by presenting expert affidavits asserting that the television show could foreseeably influence a child to emulate the weapon-throwing behavior and that the toy's design, which allowed the part to be detached, posed an unreasonable danger. While LJN's compliance with federal safety regulations is some evidence of due care, it does not preclude a finding of negligence. Similarly, the "obvious risk" doctrine is not an absolute defense under New York law but is merely one factor for the jury to consider in determining reasonable care.
Dissenting - Sullivan, J.
No. No genuine issue of material fact exists, and summary judgment should be granted. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the toy was defective or unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. The toy is inanimate, not a projectile, and undisputedly complied with all federal safety standards for sharp points and edges. A manufacturer has no duty to warn against the obvious risk that an injury may occur if a toy is thrown, and the law does not cast a manufacturer in the role of an insurer for all misuse of its product. Furthermore, the boy who threw the object testified under oath that he was not emulating the cartoon character, which directly contradicts the plaintiffs' theory of liability.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high bar for granting summary judgment in New York negligence cases, particularly in products liability suits. It establishes that a manufacturer's duty can extend to foreseeable misuse, especially when its own marketing, such as a television tie-in, may encourage such misuse. The ruling is significant for cases involving children's products and media, as it broadens the scope of foreseeability to include the influence of marketing on child behavior, making it more difficult for manufacturers to dismiss such cases before trial.
