Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
17 N.E.3d 1141 (N.Y. 2014)
Chow (plaintiff), a restaurant worker who didn't read English and never saw the product's warning label, mixed roughly three spoonfuls of a 100% lye drain cleaner with water in a dry aluminum container based on how he'd seen coworkers do it (rather than following the actual directions), causing a violent reaction that splashed into his face and caused severe burns and vision loss; Chow sued the manufacturer (defendant) for failure to warn and design defect, and the manufacturer moved for summary judgment relying on Chow's mishandling and an attorney's affirmation asserting the product's danger was widely known and that any reformulation would create a fundamentally different product. The trial court and appellate division granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, and the Chows appealed the design-defect ruling.
Whether a manufacturer defending a design-defect claim on summary judgment satisfies its burden of showing the product is reasonably safe for its intended use merely by pointing to the plaintiff's mishandling of the product or an attorney's affirmation asserting the product's known danger, without evidence that the product's utility outweighs its inherent risk of harm.