Preston v. Peter Luger Enterprises, Inc.
858 N.Y.S.2d 828, 51 A.D.3d 1322 (2008)
Rule of Law:
To establish strict products liability for a design defect, a plaintiff must show the product was not reasonably safe as designed and the defect was a substantial factor in causing injury, requiring empirical data or foundational facts. For a manufacturing defect, a plaintiff must either provide direct evidence of a flaw when it left the manufacturer or, circumstantially, prove the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes of failure not attributable to the defendant.
Facts:
- In April 2001, Lucy Preston purchased a bottle of steak sauce manufactured by Peter Luger Steakhouse from a grocery store in Lake Placid, Essex County.
- Kevin Preston was injured when the neck of the glass bottle broke while he was attempting to open it.
- Peter Luger Steakhouse used the bottle design at issue for a three-year period from 1999 to 2001, during which approximately 2.1 million bottles were manufactured by Leone Industries.
- Peter Luger Steakhouse's president and Leone Industries' quality assurance manager were aware of only this single instance where the neck of this bottle design broke upon an attempt to open it.
- Peter Luger Steakhouse did not sell its steak sauce directly to the grocery chain where the Prestons purchased the bottle, and the chain of custody for the bottle prior to its sale to the grocery store was unknown.
- A portion of the neck of the bottle was not recovered following the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Preston and Lucy Preston, derivatively, commenced an action against Peter Luger Steakhouse in Supreme Court (trial court) in Essex County, asserting claims for strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and failure to warn.
- Following discovery, Peter Luger Steakhouse moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the entire complaint.
- Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on their breach of implied warranty claim.
- The Supreme Court partially granted Peter Luger Steakhouse's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the strict products liability and negligence claims, and denied the remainder of Peter Luger Steakhouse's motion and plaintiffs' cross-motion.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, from the part of the order entered February 28, 2007, that dismissed their causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.
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 plaintiff's expert affidavit, containing only generalized statements and conclusory assertions without empirical data or specific findings, raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment on claims of strict products liability (design and manufacturing defects) and negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.E.
No, a plaintiff's expert affidavit, consisting of only generalized statements and bare conclusory assertions without empirical data or foundational facts, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment on claims of strict products liability (design and manufacturing defects) and negligence. The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the claims. For the design defect claim, the Court found that Peter Luger Steakhouse met its initial burden for summary judgment by presenting affidavits from its president and the bottle manufacturer's manager. These affidavits stated that the bottle's thickness well exceeded general industry standards, specifically controverted the plaintiffs' expert's opinion that the long neck design was defective, and noted that out of approximately 2.1 million bottles of this design manufactured over three years, this was the only reported instance of breakage. This evidence established a prima facie showing, shifting the burden to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to meet this burden because their expert, an industrial engineer, provided an affidavit containing only generalized statements and bare conclusory assertions that the long neck bottle had less 'load carrying capability' and violated acceptable engineering practices and industry standards. The Court deemed this opinion lacking 'sufficient probative value' because it was 'not supported by any empirical data or foundational facts,' citing Pigliavento v Tyler Equip. Corp. and Fallon v Hannay & Son. For the manufacturing defect claim, Peter Luger Steakhouse also met its prima facie burden by detailing a comprehensive bottle inspection process. Affidavits described electronic inspection (bright field analysis), examination by trained inspectors, and various sampling procedures testing for sidewall thickness, impact resistance, sealing surface deviations, glass composition, cracks, and thermal expansion resistance. This established that the bottle was not defective when it left the manufacturing facility (citing McArdle v Navistar Intl. Corp. and Ramos v Howard Indus., Inc.). Plaintiffs' expert's opposition was again insufficient. While he observed 'small discontinuities' in photographs and bottle portions, he failed to explain their significance, cite industry standards, or support a conclusion that these affected structural integrity. His conclusion that there were 'potentially manufacturing defects' was deemed 'wholly speculative.' Furthermore, plaintiffs' attempt to prove the manufacturing defect circumstantially (in the absence of a specific flaw) also failed. This approach requires proving the product did not perform as intended and 'exclud[ing] all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to defendant' (citing Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co.). Given the unknown chain of custody after the bottle left the manufacturer and the missing portion of the bottle's neck post-accident, the Court found plaintiffs failed to exclude pre-accident damage as the cause of breakage. The expert's averment of no such damage was insufficient given his acknowledgment of the missing portion and failure to discuss its potential significance. Finally, given the negligible difference between a prima facie case in negligence and one in strict liability (Denny v Ford Motor Co.), the Court concluded that plaintiffs' proof similarly failed to raise an issue of fact for their negligent design and manufacturing claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the evidentiary requirements for plaintiffs in New York pursuing strict products liability claims, particularly when confronting summary judgment. It emphasizes that expert testimony must be robustly supported by empirical data, foundational facts, and a clear causal connection, moving beyond mere generalized or speculative assertions. The ruling also underscores the rigorous standard for proving a manufacturing defect circumstantially, mandating that plaintiffs not only demonstrate product failure but also actively and thoroughly exclude all alternative causes of failure not attributable to the manufacturer, including pre-accident damage or unknown handling throughout the product's chain of custody. This case serves as a critical precedent, illustrating that plaintiffs must conduct exhaustive investigations and present highly specific, well-supported evidence to overcome summary judgment in product liability actions.
