Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc. - 950 N.E.2d 113 (N.Y. 2011)

I. Issue
Whether Defendant's motion for summary judgment may be granted when Defendant is merely stating that RDL (Lewis Red Devil Lye) is dangerous, that everyone knows it is dangerous, and that precise warnings of its danger were given and not followed.
II. Fact
P lost one of his eye when he was using RDL to unclog a drain.  He could not read English, so he could not read the warnings on the product.  P brought this products liability action against D responsible for the manufacture, distribution, and package design of RDL.  D moved for summary judgement.
III. Holding
Summary judgment in a strict products liability case may be granted on the basis of the plaintiffs conduct when the plaintiff's actions constituted "the sole proximate cause" of his or her injuries.  Even, with adequate warnings, a product may be so dangerous, and its misuse may be so foreseeable, that a factfinder employing the required risk-utility analysis our case law has established could reasonably conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing it.  On this motion, merely stating in an attorney's affirmation that RDL is dangerous, that everyone knows it is dangerous, and that precise warnings of its danger were given and not followed was insufficient to entitle defendants to summary judgment as a matter of law.  D were required to demonstrate that RDL was reasonably safe for its intended use, but they offered no such evidence.