Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">In <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Williams-v.-Madvapes.pdf">Williams v. Madvapes</a></em>, plaintiff was seriously injured after an electronic cigarette battery exploded and caught fire in her pocket. She filed a products liability suit against three companies in Queens County Supreme Court, alleging that they were negligent and failed to warn her of the allegedly defective lithium-ion “e-cigarette” battery. In the lawsuit, Williams’ attorneys alleged that the battery was only intended to be used in power tools and said that their client never received instructions on how to carry and store the product.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Under New York law, there are three distinct claims for strict products liability, a mistake in manufacturing, an improper design, or an inadequate or absent warning for the use of the product. A manufacturer is under a duty to use reasonable care in designing its product when used in the manner intended as well as unintended but yet reasonably foreseeable. (See Robinson v Reed Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 NY2d 471 [1980].) A manufacturer also has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from reasonably foreseeable uses of its product, whether intended or not. (See Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232 [1998].)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the batteries were not intended for personal use, and only for use in power tools. In opposition, plaintiff contended that there were no warnings printed on the batteries or on the boxes in which the batteries were shipped, nor were any separate warnings packed with the batteries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Court found that the evidence submitted by defendants did not sufficiently resolve all issues of fact such as, whether defendants knew or should have known that the batteries were not manufactured for use in e-cigarette units, whether it conducted proper due diligence as to suitability of these batteries for the purposes for which they were intended, and whether it had an obligation to provide appropriate warnings as to their use. As such, defendants’ motion was denied.</p>
Thanks to Tyler Rossworn for his contribution to this post. Please email <a href="mailto:VTerrasi@WCMLaw.com">Vincent F. Terrasi</a> with any questions.