During the February Session, the New York Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Ramos v. Howard Indus. Inc. — a products liability case concerning an electrical transformer.  The novel issue concerns the burden a manufacturer has on summary judgment to make a prima facie showing that no manufacturing defect existed where the product has been spoliated.

The plaintiff
in Ramos commenced a products liability action seeking damages for injuries
he allegedly sustained when a transformer designed and manufactured by
the defendant exploded.   Initially, the plaintiff
reported to his employer and doctors that he was injured when he
reached out of an aerial bucket while installing the transformer on a
utility pole.  The plaintiff later claimed that his injuries occurred as a
result of the transformer explosion, but at that time the transformer
could not be located for inspection or testing concerning the cause of
its failure.

In support of its motion the defendant manufacturer proffered
evidence that its transformers generally were designed and manufactured
under state of the art conditions according to power company’s
specifications and complied with all applicable industry standards.  The evidence also demonstrated that the transformer which allegedly exploded and injured the plaintiff would
have been individually tested to ensure compliance with customer
specifications and industry requirements.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department Majority agreed with the trial court that the defendant manufacturer did not meet its burden on summary judgment because it merely pointed to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof. 

Justice Peradotto dissented, offering a well-reasoned opinion on the impossible standard the Majority required of a defendant in defending a circumstantial products liability case where the product was missing.

NYCL will keep you apprised of the decision when the Court hands it down.