Pierre-Louis v. DeLonghi America, Inc.

• Citation: 66 A.D.3d 859,887 N.Y.S.2d 628,2009 NY Slip Op 7609
• Decision Date: 20 October 2009
• Docket Number: 2008-05492.
• Parties: MARIE PIERRE-LOUIS, Respondent, v. DeLONGHI AMERICA, INC., et al., Appellants, and ANTONEEN DARDEN et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

66 A.D.3d 859

887 N.Y.S.2d 628

2009 NY Slip Op 7609

MARIE PIERRE-LOUIS, Respondent, v. DeLONGHI AMERICA, INC., et al., Appellants, and ANTONEEN DARDEN et al., Respondents.

2008-05492.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided October 20, 2009.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants DeLonghi America, Inc., and Home Depot, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated April 4, 2008, as amended by an order of the same court dated August 1, 2008, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the appellants.

This appeal arises from a fire that occurred on January 13, 2003 at the home of Antoneen Darden-McCall, sued herein as Antoneen Darden and Antoneen McCall (hereinafter Darden), which took the life of Cassandra Pierre-Louis (hereafter the decedent). On the day of the fire, the decedent was a guest of Darden's son, the defendant Marques McCall, also known as Marcus McCall (hereafter Marques). According to the New York City Fire Department, a portable oil-filled space heater, manufactured by the defendant DeLonghi America, Inc. (hereafter DeLonghi), sold by the defendant Home Depot, Inc. (hereafter Home Depot), and purchased by Darden the day before the fire, caused the subject fire. Darden's other son, the defendant Matthew McCall (hereafter Matthew), had taken the heater out of the box when it was brought home, and, unintentionally, placed it upside down. It is undisputed that he was the only user of the subject heater prior to the fire.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, DeLonghi and Home Depot, seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, alleging causes of action sounding in strict products liability. The plaintiff alleged that the heater was defectively manufactured and/or designed, and alleged a failure to warn regarding the use of the heater. DeLonghi and Home Depot (hereafter together the movants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

"[A] manufacturer may be held liable for placing into the stream of commerce a defective product which causes injury" (Gebo v Black Clawson Co., 92 NY2d 387, 392 [1998]). This burden is also imposed on a "wholesaler, distributor, or retailer who sells a product in a defective condition" (Godoy v Abamaster of Miami, 302 AD2d 57, 60 [2003]).

There are three distinct claims for strict products liability: "(1) a mistake in manufacturing . . . (2) an improper design . . . or (3) an inadequate or absent warning for the use of the product" (Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 61-62 [1980]; see Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., 69 NY2d 89 [1986]; Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 NY2d 471, 478-479 [1980]).

Contrary to the movants' contention, they did not meet their initial burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with regard to the manufacturing defect claims (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). "[A] defectively manufactured product is flawed because it is misconstructed without regard to whether the intended design of the manufacturer was safe or not. Such defects result from some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship, or because defective materials were used in construction" (Caprara v Chrysler Corp., 52 NY2d 114, 128-129 [1981]). Here, the movants' own expert admitted that welds in the subject heater model would breech and oil would spurt out when the heater is operated in the upside down position, and DeLonghi's own president admitted that it was reasonably foreseeable that the subject heater would be operated in the upside down position, and specifically knew that the subject heater had previously been operated is such manner by users for a number of years prior to the subject fire.

The movants did, however, meet their initial burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding the design defect claims, through the submission of the opinion of their expert explaining that the subject heater was not defectively designed (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

...