Co Argued That the Point and Edges of the Oyster Knife Blade Were Considerably Sharper

August 24 2009

Knives are just sharp. Live with it. Such was the decision from a New York court in Orlie, Co v. Update Intern. Inc., 2009 WL 2364005. Orlie Co, a sous chef brought suit against Update because he had slashed his wrist whilst using a OYOP-7 model oyster knife, manufactured by Update. The knife features a plastic handle, pointed tip and sharp edges along both sides of its three inch stainless steel blade. Co held the oyster in a towel and pressed the tip of the knife into the muscle of the oyster, located at the hinge of its shell. Co testified that the knife then slipped out of position and lacerated his wrist.

Co argued that the point and edges of the oyster knife blade were considerably sharper than were necessary, and that this sharpness resulted in his injuries. Co asserts that Update is liable for his injuries on the bases of negligence, recklessness and carelessness in manufacturing and labeling the oyster knife, breach of warranty and strict products liability. Co asserts that Empire should similarly be liable on the bases of breach of warranty and strict products liability. Additionally, Empire brings a cross claim against Update seeking common-law indemnification due to Update's sale of the allegedly defective knife to Empire. But, said the court, knives are sharp, the knife was not defective, and there is no duty to warn someone that your knives are sharp. The case featured expert testimony from chefs and professors that oysters knives must be particularly sharp to perform the hinge maneuver for opening the oyster. Below is an edited version of the court’s discussion of the product liability issues.

MADDEN, Judge u In order for the manufacturer of a defective product to be held liable to a person injured by the product, it must be shown that “ ‘the defect was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury or damages.’ ” ( Voss v, Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106 [1983] (quoting Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 342 [1973])). “A plaintiff may assert that [a] product is defective because of a mistake in the manufacturing process, because of an improper design or because the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the use of the product.”

A defectively designed product is one which, “at the time it leaves the seller's hands, is in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; that is one whose utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce.” When a product is inherently dangerous, such as a gun or knife, it must be shown to be unreasonably dangerous, given its intended use, before it is considered to bear a design defect. ( Fee- Yee Ng v, Barnes & Noble, Inc., 308 AD2d 340, 341 [1st Dept 2003]; see also Martinez v. Roberts Consolidated Industries, 299 AD2d 399 [2d Dept 2002] (holding that knife used by carpet-installer was not shown to be defectively designed based on its lack of thumb rest and slip resistant features where defendant's expert demonstrated that the knife, as designed, was reasonably safe)). If the product is not defective, then the manufacturer may not be held liable on the basis of either strict products liability or negligence. ( Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 NY2d at 478-81 [1980] (holding that a negligence cause of action can be stated against a manufacturer where it can be shown that the manufacturer was responsible for a defect that caused injury and that the manufacturer could have foreseen the injury)).

In Ng, supra, for example, the plaintiff burnt and injured herself when she opened the lid to a hot beverage that she purchased from the defendant. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the temperature of the beverage was “an inherently dangerous attribute,” the danger of which was reasonably contemplated. Therefore, the beverage was not unreasonably dangerous, provided that it was not heated “beyond reasonably expected limits.” ( Id.).

In this case, Update makes a prima facie showing based on the opinion of his expert, McCabe, that its oyster knife is designed reasonably safe for its intended use, and under Ng that it is not unreasonable dangerous given its intended use. Specifically, McCabe opines that the blade's sharpness is a necessary attribute of the knife when utilizing the side-knife method to open oysters, and that the side-knife method is an important means of opening oysters because it facilitates better aesthetic presentation of the oyster shell.

The burden thus shifts to Co to raise a triable issue of fact. Co has not met this burden. While Co's expert, Bordi, opines that oyster knives do not require sharp blades when the hinge method is used to open oysters, he does not challenge McCabe's opinion that a sharp oyster knife is necessary when opening oysters using the side-knife method, nor does he challenge that the side-knife method is a necessary means of opening oysters. Bordi does not even mention the side-knife method in his affidavit.

The remainder of Co's evidence is also insufficient to controvert McCabe's opinion or to show that the knife was defective. The fact that several customers asked Update to make the edges of its oyster knife duller, or that several other oyster knives were duller than Update's original model, does not prove that Update's original model was defectively designed. McCabe opined that the sharpness of Update's oyster knife was within industry standards, whether or not it could have been made duller, and Co provides no evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the fact that Update did not test its oyster knives' sharpness does not prove that that the knives were in fact defective. Accordingly, Co has not established that the knife was unreasonably dangerous nor has he controverted Update's showing that the oyster knife was reasonably safe. Therefore, Update cannot be held liable on the basis of either strict products liability or negligence.

Co additionally argues that Update mislabeled its utensil as an oyster knife although its features were more akin to those of a clam knife. However, as Update has established that the sharpness of its oyster knife falls within industry standards, it plainly follows that the oyster knife was correctly labeled. Co's argument that he was misled by the mislabeling is therefore without merit.

Update also cannot be held liable for its failure to warn Co about the sharpness of its knife. A manufacturer has a duty to warn against (1) latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known, and (2) of the danger of unintended uses of a product provided these uses are reasonably foreseeable. ( Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232, 237 [1998]). Under the circumstances of this case, where the danger was readily discernable, it cannot be said that Update had a duty to warn.

Finally, since there is no design defect, it cannot be said that Update breached any warranties. ( See Codling v, Paglia, 38 AD2d 154, 158 [3d Dept 1972], affd in part revd in part, 32 NY2d 330 [1973] (“In a breach of warranty action, plaintiff must prove that... the injury occurred because the product was defective.”)).

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Discuss the elements of a product liability case as well as a breach of warranty action.