M.H. v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
64 N.Y.S.3d 205, 2017 NY Slip Op 7790, 156 A.D.3d 33 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is defectively designed as a matter of law when its utility is minimal and vastly outweighed by the high risk of severe injury from a latent danger, which makes misuse of the product foreseeable even when warnings are provided.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs purchased a decorative product consisting of a 'FireBurners' ceramic pot and a bottle of 'FireGel' fuel from the defendant.
- The product came with multiple warnings, including a sticker on the pot stating 'DON’T REFILL UNTIL FLAME IS OUT & CUP IS COOL' and instructions on the fuel bottle saying 'NEVER add fuel to a burning fire.'
- Plaintiffs sustained injuries when the fire pot combusted and exploded as it was being refueled with the fuel gel.
- When the FireGel burns down, the flame becomes nearly invisible, which can mislead a user into believing the flame is extinguished and the pot is safe to refuel.
- The fuel gel has a high viscosity, causing it to stick to skin and clothing, which increases the difficulty of extinguishing the flaming gel if it makes contact with a person.
- Testimony from witnesses was inconsistent as to whether the fire pot was still hot or visibly lit at the moment it was refueled.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed an action against the defendant in the Supreme Court, New York County, a trial-level court.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims for manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, failure to warn, and punitive damages.
- Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on their defective design and failure to warn claims.
- The trial court denied both the defendant's motion and the plaintiffs' motion.
- Both parties appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 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 product's design, which poses a severe and latent risk of explosion during foreseeable misuse, render it unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law, even when warnings against such misuse are provided?
Opinions:
Majority - Kern, J.
Yes. A product is defectively designed as a matter of law where its utility is so low and its risk of harm so great that it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, especially when a latent defect makes misuse foreseeable. Applying the risk-utility balancing test from Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., the court found the fire pot's utility was purely decorative and minimal, while its risk was an 'extraordinary safety risk' of explosion and propelling flaming gel. The court emphasized the latent danger posed by the nearly invisible flame when the fuel burns low, which misleads users and makes the misuse of refueling a hot or lit pot foreseeable. It also noted the existence of safer alternative designs, such as non-refillable fuel cartridges, that would eliminate the refueling hazard. Citing Yun Tung Chow v Reckitt & Colman, Inc., the court concluded that even with adequate warnings, the product was so inherently dangerous and its misuse so foreseeable due to the latent defect that its utility could not outweigh the inherent risk.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that a court can grant summary judgment to a plaintiff on a design defect claim, finding a product unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. It strongly reinforces the principle that warnings are not a panacea for an inherently defective design, particularly when a product's latent characteristics make foreseeable misuse almost inevitable. The case clarifies that for products with low utility, the manufacturer's duty to design a safe product is heightened, and the availability of a safer alternative design is a powerful factor in the risk-utility analysis. Future product liability cases involving foreseeable misuse and latent dangers will likely cite this case to argue that liability can be determined without a full trial.
