35 Cited authorities

Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors
98 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 1,907 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that contract requiring snow removal service to plow when snow accumulation reached three inches was "not the type of 'comprehensive and exclusive' property maintenance obligation contemplated" by previous case law
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 476 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"
Pulka v. Edelman
40 N.Y.2d 781 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 924 times
Holding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons
Denny v. Ford Motor Co.
87 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 413 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming distinction, under New York law, between claims based on strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of fitness pursuant to N.Y. U.C.C. § 2–314[c], including being “minimally safe” for the product's “expected purpose”
O'Neil v. Crane Co.
53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) Cited 201 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products
Hoover v. New Holland N. Am., Inc.
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2215 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 139 times
Noting that "expert evidence raised a question whether failure to replace the [safety] shield [on a post hole digger] alone caused plaintiff's injuries, or whether [this] pointed to a failure on defendants' part in selling and distributing the digger with a defectively designed shield," insofar as the shield was not designed to last the life of the digger
Codling v. Paglia
32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973) Cited 443 times
Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury
Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Co.
79 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 235 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case
Cover v. Cohen
61 N.Y.2d 261 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 283 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that liability in a design-defect case requires a balancing of “the product's risks against its utility and costs and against the risks, utility and cost of the alternatives”
Simonetta v. Viad Corp.
165 Wn. 2d 341 (Wash. 2008) Cited 97 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding "[b]ecause [product manufacturer] was not in the chain of distribution of the dangerous product, we conclude not only that it had no duty to warn under negligence, but also that it cannot be strictly liable for failure to warn"

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.--------------------------------Doris Kay Dummitt,, Respondent,v.A.W. Chesterton, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant.

35 Cited authorities

Holding that contract requiring snow removal service to plow when snow accumulation reached three inches was "not the type of 'comprehensive and exclusive' property maintenance obligation contemplated" by previous case law

Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

Holding that parking garage owner had no special relationship to pedestrians passing by on sidewalk in front of garage exit and that garage had no duty to protect off-premise pedestrians from negligent conduct of patrons

Affirming distinction, under New York law, between claims based on strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of fitness pursuant to N.Y. U.C.C. § 2–314[c], including being “minimally safe” for the product's “expected purpose”

Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products

Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury

Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case

Holding that liability in a design-defect case requires a balancing of “the product's risks against its utility and costs and against the risks, utility and cost of the alternatives”

Holding "[b]ecause [product manufacturer] was not in the chain of distribution of the dangerous product, we conclude not only that it had no duty to warn under negligence, but also that it cannot be strictly liable for failure to warn"