Earlier this month, the New York Court of Appeals vindicated Justice Perradotto’s dissenting opinion in Ramos v. Howard Indus. Inc.  In Ramos (COA opinion), the Court of Appeals addressed the novel issue concerning 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
Perradotto 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.

In its decision earlier this month, the Court of Appeals explained that the defendant, without benefit of the actual transformer, met its burden on the summary judgment motion.  With respect to the plaintiff’s burden, the Court concluded:

Plaintiff failed to present evidence excluding all other causes for the transformer’s malfunction not attributable to defendant such that a reasonable jury could find that the transformer was defective in the absence of evidence of a specific defect.  Although a plaintiff is not required to identify a specific defect in a circumstantial case, plaintiff’s theory here — that the explosion resulted from a manufacturing defect in the form of an "internal electrical fault" — is pure speculation.

A read of Speller v.  Sears, Roebuck & Co. nicely complements this decision