Speller v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
790 N.E.2d 252 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a products liability case may prove a defect circumstantially by establishing that the product did not perform as intended and by excluding all other causes of the failure not attributable to the defendants. When a defendant offers evidence of an alternative cause, the plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion by presenting competent expert evidence to rebut the alternative cause theory, thereby creating a triable issue of fact.
Facts:
- A refrigerator manufactured by Whirlpool Corporation was sold by Sears, Roebuck and Co.
- A fire occurred in the kitchen of a home containing this refrigerator, where Sandra Speller and her seven-year-old son resided.
- Sandra Speller died as a result of the house fire.
- Speller's seven-year-old son was injured in the fire.
- The fire consumed the upper right quadrant of the refrigerator, an area with a concentration of electrical wiring, making a direct examination of the wiring for a specific flaw impossible.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (the estate of Sandra Speller) filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty against Sears, Whirlpool, and the property owner in the New York Supreme Court (the state's trial court of general jurisdiction).
- After discovery, defendants Sears and Whirlpool moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against them.
- The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Sears and Whirlpool, as appellants, appealed the denial to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, granted summary judgment for the defendants, and dismissed the complaint against them.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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 plaintiff in a products liability case raise a triable issue of fact regarding a product defect by presenting circumstantial evidence that the product caused the harm and by offering expert testimony to exclude an alternative cause proposed by the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
Yes. A plaintiff raises a triable issue of fact by presenting competent evidence that, if credited by a jury, is sufficient to rebut the defendant's evidence of an alternative cause. To prove a defect circumstantially, a plaintiff must show the product did not perform as intended and must exclude other potential causes. Here, the defendants presented evidence from the Fire Marshal suggesting a stovetop grease fire was the cause. In response, the plaintiffs presented testimony from three of their own experts who concluded the fire originated in the refrigerator's wiring and specifically ruled out the stove as the source. This 'battle of the experts' creates a question of credibility and causation for a jury to decide. The court's role on a summary judgment motion is 'issue identification, not issue resolution,' and forcing a plaintiff to prove a specific defect merely because the defendant proposed an alternative cause would usurp the jury's function. Because a reasonable jury could credit the plaintiffs' experts and conclude that they excluded all other causes of the fire, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the viability of circumstantial evidence for proving a product defect, which is critical in cases where the product is destroyed in the incident it allegedly caused. It clarifies that a defendant cannot automatically defeat a circumstantial evidence claim at the summary judgment stage simply by proposing an alternative cause. The decision reinforces that the plaintiff's burden is to produce sufficient rebuttal evidence to create a factual dispute, not to definitively disprove the defendant's theory before trial. This preserves the jury's role as the ultimate fact-finder in weighing competing expert testimonies on the issue of causation.
Unlock the full brief for Speller v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.