Victorson v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.
373 N.Y.S.2d 39, 37 N.Y.2d 395, 335 N.E.2d 275 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statute of limitations for a strict products liability claim is the three-year period applicable to tort actions for personal injury and property damage, and the cause of action accrues on the date of injury, not the date of sale.
Facts:
- Defendant Bock Laundry Machine Company manufactured and sold a centrifuge extractor in 1948.
- Bock manufactured and sold another centrifuge extractor in 1955.
- Bock manufactured and sold a third centrifuge extractor in 1959.
- In 1965, the plaintiff in the 'Brown' case was injured by the machine sold in 1955.
- In 1967, the plaintiff in the 'Rivera' case was injured by the machine sold in 1959.
- In 1969, the plaintiff in the 'Victorson' case was injured by the machine sold in 1948.
- In all three instances, the injured plaintiffs were remote users who had no direct contractual relationship with the manufacturer, Bock.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs in three separate cases sued the manufacturer, Bock Laundry Machine Company, in state trial court, alleging strict products liability.
- Bock moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were barred by the statute of limitations which, under the prevailing precedent of Mendel, ran from the date of sale.
- The trial courts granted Bock's motions to dismiss.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissals in all three cases.
- Bock (the appellant) then appealed these reversals to the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), with the injured plaintiffs as the appellees.
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 the statute of limitations for a strict products liability claim begin to run on the date of injury rather than the date of sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes. A strict products liability claim sounds in tort, not contract, and therefore the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the injury is sustained. The court reasoned that tort actions are created to protect individuals from harm, with duties imposed by law and social policy, not by the will of the parties as in contract. Since there was no prior relationship between the plaintiffs and the manufacturer, the cause of action could not logically exist until an injury occurred. To bar a person from suing before they even have a cause of action would be 'all but unthinkable.' The court overruled its prior decision in Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., aligning New York with the general consensus that strict products liability is a tort claim governed by the tort statute of limitations, which runs from the date of injury.
Concurring - Fuchsberg, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion and writes separately to emphasize that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was not intended to preempt the field of tort law for personal injuries caused by defective products. The UCC's four-year-from-sale statute of limitations was designed for commercial transactions between businesses, not for consumer injury cases. The UCC itself contains flexible provisions regarding notice, disclaimers, and privity in consumer cases, demonstrating a legislative intent to allow tort law to develop independently. Therefore, applying the tort statute of limitations is the correct and logical outcome, providing simplicity and equality of application for all persons injured by defective products.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally changed New York products liability law by overruling Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. It solidified the classification of strict products liability as a tort claim, ensuring that the statute of limitations runs from the date of injury, which is a more plaintiff-friendly standard. This ruling prevents the harsh outcome where a person injured by a long-lasting product could find their right to sue had expired before they were even harmed. The case aligns New York with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions and provides greater protection for consumers against manufacturers of defective goods.
