Auto Defect Lawsuits in New York
While car accidents generally result from careless actions by one or more drivers, a defect in a car or one of its components also may cause a crash. This may support a products liability claim against the manufacturer responsible for the defect. In contrast to most personal injury cases, which are based on a theory of negligence, products liability cases often use a theory of strict liability. The New York Court of Appeals adopted this theory in the 1973 decision of Codling v. Paglia, based on a defective steering mechanism.
The Court in Codling held that a manufacturer of a defective product may be held liable, without proof of negligence, for damages resulting from the defect. In other words, the victim does not need to show a lack of reasonable care by the defendant. However, they still must show that the defect was a substantial factor in causing their injuries. The person using the product must have been using it for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose, moreover, and the manufacturer may use comparative negligence as a defense. The Codling case involved a manufacturing defect, which occurs when an error in the production process leads to a dangerous flaw in a particular item or set of items. The Court of Appeals later extended strict products liability to design defects and inadequate warnings as well.
Design Defects Under New York Law
A design defect may occur when the design for an entire line of products contains a significant safety risk. More specifically, according to the Court of Appeals, a product is defectively designed when its usefulness does not outweigh the danger of releasing it into the market.
In this type of case, a jury or judge must balance the risks inherent in the design of the product against its usefulness and cost. This may require considering factors such as:
- The usefulness of the product to the public and the individual user
- The likelihood that the product will cause harm
- The availability of a safer design
- The potential for designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but still functional and reasonably priced
- The ability of the plaintiff to have avoided injury by careful use of the product
- The degree of awareness of the potential danger of the product that reasonably can be attributed to the plaintiff
- The manufacturer’s ability to spread any cost related to improving the safety of the design
The Court of Appeals has recognized an exception to strict liability for design defects when the manufacturer offers a product with an optional safety device that is not a required accessory, the purchaser chooses not to buy it, and the victim claims that the product is defective due to the absence of the accessory.
Inadequate Warnings Under New York Law
The Court of Appeals has explained that a manufacturer must provide adequate warnings for the use of its product. This means that it must tell consumers about latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known. It must also warn consumers about the danger of unintended uses of its product if these uses are reasonably foreseeable. Sometimes a manufacturer even may be required to warn a user about dangers associated with a product after it has been sold. This duty generally arises when the use of the product by consumers reveals a defect or danger, which is brought to the attention of the manufacturer. It may issue a product recall in this situation, asking consumers to stop using a particular product and return it for repair or replacement.
