Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.green2 sentences2020A "defect in a product may consist of one of three elements: mistake in manufacturing, improper design, or by the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use [*3]of the product" ( id. at 478-479 [citations omitted]; see Mendez-Canales v Agnelli Macchine S.R.L. , 165 AD3d 646 , 647). 1997"A cause of action in strict products liability lies where a manufacturer places on the market a product which has a defect that causes injury * * * As the law has developed thus far, a defect in a product may consist of one of three elements: mistake in manufacturing * * * improper design * * * or by the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product” (Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., 49 NY2d 471, 478-479 ). | 2 | 7 |
Amatulli v. Delhi Construction Corp.green2 sentences2006Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532 [1991]). 2005Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 532 [1991]; Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. | 2 | 4 |
Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.green2 sentences2018In other words, "[f]or there to be recovery for damages stemming from a product defective because of the inadequacy or absence of warnings, the failure to warn must have been a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury" ( Billsborrow v Dow Chem. , 177 AD2d 7, 16 ). 2006“For there to be recovery for damages stemming from a product defective because of the inadequacy or absence of warnings, the failure to warn must have been a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” (Billsborrow v Dow Chem., 177 AD2d 7, 16 [1992]; see Amatulli v Delhi Constr. | 1 | 3 |
Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc.green1 sentence2018"Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause" ( Kalland v Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC , 84 AD3d 889, 889 ; see Howard v Poseidon Pools , 72 NY2d 972, 974 ; Scala v Scala, 31 AD3d 423, 424 ). | 1 | 1 |
Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green1 sentence2005Bock demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]) and the papers submitted in opposition failed to set forth competent evidence of a defect, “an improper design or the inadequacy or absence of warnings for use of the product” (Amatulli v Delhi Constr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Micallef v. Miehle Co.
green
2 sentences1991A defect in a product may consist of a mistake in manufacturing, an improper design or the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product (see, Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330 , supra; Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376 ; Torrogrossa v Towmotor Co., 44 NY2d 709 ). 1980Co., 37 NY2d 395 ; Codling v Paglia, supra), improper design (Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376 ; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 33 NY2d 151 ), or by the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product (Torrogrossa v Towmotor Co., 44 NY2d 709 ). | 2 | 1980–1991 |
Codling v. Paglia
green
2 sentences1991A defect in a product may consist of a mistake in manufacturing, an improper design or the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product (see, Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330 , supra; Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376 ; Torrogrossa v Towmotor Co., 44 NY2d 709 ). 1980Co., 37 NY2d 395 ; Codling v Paglia, supra), improper design (Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376 ; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 33 NY2d 151 ), or by the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product (Torrogrossa v Towmotor Co., 44 NY2d 709 ). | 2 | 1980–1991 |
Kalland v. Hungry Harbor Associates
green
1 sentence2018"Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause" ( Kalland v Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC , 84 AD3d 889, 889 ; see Howard v Poseidon Pools , 72 NY2d 972, 974 ; Scala v Scala, 31 AD3d 423, 424 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Scala v. Scala
green
1 sentence2018"Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause" ( Kalland v Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC , 84 AD3d 889, 889 ; see Howard v Poseidon Pools , 72 NY2d 972, 974 ; Scala v Scala, 31 AD3d 423, 424 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Belling v. Haugh's Pools, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1994But there is no liability for failure to warn where such risks and dangers are so obvious that they can ordinarily be appreciated by any consumer to the same extent that a formal warning would provide (Oza v Sinatra, 176 AD2d 926, 928 ; Caris v Mele, 134 AD2d 475, 476 ; Belling v Haugh’s Pools, 126 AD2d 958, 959 , lv denied 70 NY2d 602 ), or where they can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense (Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693 ; see also, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 96 [a], at 686-687 [5th ed]). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Caris v. Mele
green
1 sentence1994But there is no liability for failure to warn where such risks and dangers are so obvious that they can ordinarily be appreciated by any consumer to the same extent that a formal warning would provide (Oza v Sinatra, 176 AD2d 926, 928 ; Caris v Mele, 134 AD2d 475, 476 ; Belling v Haugh’s Pools, 126 AD2d 958, 959 , lv denied 70 NY2d 602 ), or where they can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense (Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693 ; see also, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 96 [a], at 686-687 [5th ed]). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ocean Independent Bank v. Tyrnauer
neutral
1 sentence1994But there is no liability for failure to warn where such risks and dangers are so obvious that they can ordinarily be appreciated by any consumer to the same extent that a formal warning would provide (Oza v Sinatra, 176 AD2d 926, 928 ; Caris v Mele, 134 AD2d 475, 476 ; Belling v Haugh’s Pools, 126 AD2d 958, 959 , lv denied 70 NY2d 602 ), or where they can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense (Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693 ; see also, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 96 [a], at 686-687 [5th ed]). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Smith v. Stark
green
1 sentence1994But there is no liability for failure to warn where such risks and dangers are so obvious that they can ordinarily be appreciated by any consumer to the same extent that a formal warning would provide (Oza v Sinatra, 176 AD2d 926, 928 ; Caris v Mele, 134 AD2d 475, 476 ; Belling v Haugh’s Pools, 126 AD2d 958, 959 , lv denied 70 NY2d 602 ), or where they can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense (Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693 ; see also, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 96 [a], at 686-687 [5th ed]). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence1987Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106-107 ; Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., 49 NY2d 471, 478-479 , supra). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opera v. Hyva, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982Co., 49 NY2d 471, 478-479 ; Opera v Hyva, Inc., 86 AD2d 373, 376-377 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Bolm v. Triumph Corp.
green
1 sentence1980Co., 37 NY2d 395 ; Codling v Paglia, supra), improper design (Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376 ; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 33 NY2d 151 ), or by the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product (Torrogrossa v Towmotor Co., 44 NY2d 709 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Victorson v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.
green
1 sentence1980Co., 37 NY2d 395 ; Codling v Paglia, supra), improper design (Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376 ; Bolm v Triumph Corp., 33 NY2d 151 ), or by the inadequacy or absence of warnings for the use of the product (Torrogrossa v Towmotor Co., 44 NY2d 709 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |