NY Ct of Appeals Reaffirms that Manufacturer Has Post-Sale Duty to Warn, Not Recall

Posted on May 11, 2010 by Grace Healy

In Adams v Genie Industries, Inc., decided today, the Court of Appeals ruled that a manufacturer has a post-sale duty to warn of risks discovered after the sale of a product; the manufacturer does not have a duty to recall or retrofit the product.    The case arose from the tipping over of a personnel lift manufactured by defendant. The accident occurred approximately 11 years after the lift was sold to the plaintiff’s employer.

The case also discusses when a party may appeal after it has stipulated an additur or remittitur. Any information about when an order may be appealed is always welcome.

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Washington Refuses to Find Manufacturer Liable for Failure to Warn of Hazards of Another's Product

Posted on December 11, 2008 by Grace Healy

Today, the Washington Supreme Court refused to hold a manufacturer liable for failing to warn of the danger of another manufacturer’s product.  The case Simonetta v. Viad Corporation involved a claim for personal injury as a result of asbestos exposure. Because the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos before 1981, the court decided the case using common law principles of negligence and strict liability rather than the Washington Product Liability Act.

Defendant manufactured and sold an evaporator, which did not contain asbestos but which was encapsulated with insulation (asbestos) when it was used.  In order to maintain the product, the insulation had to be disturbed.  In an extensive opinion, the court ruled that there was no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos because defendant did not manufacture, supply or sell it.  Liability for negligent failure to warn is limited to those in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product.  Strict liability attaches to the manufacturer of a product.  Here the dangerous product was asbestos not the evaporator.  The opinion is must reading for anyone who wants (needs to) distinguish between strict liability for failure to warn and negligent failure to warn. 

There was a three judge dissent which would have found that plaintiff stated a prima facie case for negligence and strict liability.


 

Tags: , , ,