Product Liability

Strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty

New York recognizes three overlapping legal theories in a product case. Under strict products liability, a plaintiff must show the product was defective, the defect existed when it left the defendant's control, and the defect caused the injury, without needing to prove the manufacturer was careless. Negligence looks instead at whether the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care in design, manufacture, testing, or warnings.

Breach of implied warranty of merchantability adds a third path, arguing the product was not fit for its ordinary intended use. We typically plead all three theories together, since each survives different defenses and requires slightly different proof at trial.

Design defect: the risk-utility test

New York courts apply a risk-utility balancing test to design defect claims, weighing the product's utility against the risk it poses, the availability of a feasible safer alternative design, the cost of that alternative, and the awareness of the danger by the ordinary user. A feasible alternative design is often the single most important piece of evidence in the case.

We retain mechanical and materials engineers to build or identify that alternative design and show it was economically and technically achievable at the time the product was manufactured. Without that alternative-design proof, even a genuinely dangerous product can be hard to win at trial.

Manufacturing defects and failure to warn

A manufacturing defect claim is narrower: it argues that this specific unit departed from the manufacturer's own specifications, even if the design itself was safe. Proof often comes from comparing the failed unit to an exemplar built to spec, along with quality-control and batch records obtained in discovery.

A failure-to-warn claim asks whether the manufacturer adequately warned of a non-obvious danger it knew or should have known about. Warnings must be conspicuous, specific to the actual risk, and located where a user will see them before the danger arises, not buried in a manual no one reads.

Who can be sued, the chain of distribution

New York law allows a claim against every commercial entity in the chain of distribution: the manufacturer, any component-part maker, the distributor, the importer, and the retailer. This matters practically because each entity may carry a separate insurance policy, and a foreign manufacturer with no US assets is far easier to collect from once a domestic distributor or retailer is also named.

We investigate the full supply chain early, often through product labeling, purchase records, and pre-suit disclosure demands, so the case isn't limited to whichever defendant happens to be easiest to identify.

• Manufacturer and parent companies
• Component part suppliers
• Distributors and importers
• Retailers and online marketplaces
• Design and engineering firms
• Testing and certification labs where relevant

The statute of limitations and evidence preservation

Personal injury product claims in New York generally must be filed within three years of the injury under CPLR 214. Breach-of-warranty claims run under a different four-year UCC clock from the date of sale or delivery, which can sometimes preserve a claim after the personal injury statute has run, particularly for a defect discovered years after purchase.

Spoliation is the biggest risk in these cases. If the product is discarded, repaired, or altered before a defense expert can inspect it, a court can sanction the case or even dismiss claims tied to the destroyed evidence. We send preservation letters immediately and, where needed, arrange a joint inspection protocol before any testing occurs.

What the defense will argue

Manufacturers typically raise misuse, arguing the injury happened because the product was used in a way not reasonably foreseeable, or substantial modification, arguing a third party altered the product after it left the factory. They will also point to comparative fault, arguing the user ignored a warning or bypassed a safety guard.

New York apportions damages under a pure comparative negligence rule, so even if a jury finds the injured person partly at fault, recovery is reduced rather than eliminated. We build the record early to minimize any misuse argument, including how the product was actually being used at the moment of failure.

Recalls, MDLs, and mass tort coordination

A federal recall or CPSC notice is strong evidence of a known defect, but it is not required to bring a claim and it does not resolve one. Many defective device and pharmaceutical cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for shared discovery, while each plaintiff's individual damages are still valued and, if needed, tried separately.

We track active recalls and MDL dockets relevant to medical devices, e-bike batteries, and consumer products, and we coordinate with national counsel on shared engineering and regulatory evidence when it strengthens a client's individual case.

Valuing a product liability case

Damages include past and future medical treatment, lost wages and diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, permanent disability or disfigurement, and, in fatal cases, wrongful death damages for the surviving family. Because strict liability does not require proving intent, punitive damages are less common but available where the evidence shows the manufacturer knew of the danger and disregarded it.

Because these cases usually name well-insured corporate defendants, and because a design-defect theory implicates every unit sold, not just the one that injured our client, properly built product cases can carry significantly higher value than an equivalent single-vehicle or premises claim.