Court of Appeals State of New York
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
To be Argued by: JOHN N. LIPSITZ, ESQ. (Time Requested: 30 Minutes) APL-2014-00261 Appellate Division Docket No. CA 13-01373 Erie County Clerk’s Index No. I2010-12499 Court of Appeals of the State of New York JOANNE H. SUTTNER, Executrix of the Estate of GERALD W. SUTTNER, Deceased, and Individually as the Surviving Spouse of GERALD W. SUTTNER, Plaintiff-Respondent, – against – A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, and CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent 135 Delaware Avenue, 5th Floor Buffalo, New York 14202 Tel.: (716) 849-0701 Fax: (716) 849-0708 Of Counsel: Dennis P. Harlow, Esq. John N. Lipsitz, Esq. Anne E. Joynt, Esq. March 6, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...................................................................................... 8 COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................... 9 A. The Structure of Crane’s Valves ........................................................... 9 B. The Crane Co. Valves Mr. Suttner Serviced Contained Asbestos-Containing Components at the Time of Sale ...................... 11 C. Crane’s Speculation That the Valves at Issue May Have Been Supplied Without Original Asbestos-Containing Parts Should Be Disregarded ............................................................... 14 D. Mr. Suttner’s Exposure to Crane’s Valves .......................................... 17 THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................... 20 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 22 I. NEW YORK’S LAW OF PRODUCT LIABILITY ........................... 22 A. New York’s Law of Product Liability Is a Logical Analytical Framework Composed of Doctrines Which the Courts Use Collectively To Examine Individual Circumstances; It is Not a Series of Facile Single-Factor, Contradictory “Tests,” as Crane Would Have This Court Believe ............................................................................ 22 B. New York’s Law of Product Liability, Generally: The Current Standard ................................................................ 34 C. A Manufacturer’s Duties, Generally ......................................... 37 1. A Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn ..................................... 40 2. How Post-Sale Modifications to a Product Affect a Manufacturer’s Liability .............................................. 42 3. How the Incorporation of Replacement Parts into a Product Affects a Manufacturer’s Liability ................. 45 i 4. How the Synergistic Use of Two Products Affects a Manufacturer’s Liability ................................. 49 a) Rastelli Mandates a Case-Specific Analysis of the Relationship Between the Products In Question ..................................................................... 50 5. The Significance of Foreseeability within the Context of a Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn .................... 55 D. The Application of New York’s Law of Product Liability to the Present Case .................................................................... 59 1. Legally Significant Facts ................................................ 59 2. Crane Had a Duty to Warn Mr. Suttner Under the General Negligence Principles which Govern Product Liability ............................................................. 60 3. Crane Had a Duty to Warn Mr. Suttner of Hazards Associated with Replacement Parts ................. 62 4. Crane Had a Duty to Warn Mr. Suttner of Hazards Associated with the Synergistic Use of its Products ................................................................. 69 E. The Crane Rule, as Crane Expresses it in its Brief ................... 71 1. Crane’s Rule Cannot be Reconciled with New York Law ........................................................................ 75 2. Virtually Every New York State Jurist to Have Examined the Issue of Crane’s Liability has Found that It Had a Duty to Warn Under Circumstances Similar to the Present ............................. 94 3. The Weight of the Case Law Demonstrates that Crane’s Rule is an Attempt to Replace Settled New York Law with an Outcome-Driven Test .............. 97 F. The Decisions of the Court Below Are Consistent with the Express Public Policy of the State ...................................... 98 1. Crane Misframes the Relevant Legal Issue in its Public Policy Discussion ................................................ 99 ii 2. Public Policy Favors a Broad Scope of the Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn....................................... 101 3. New York’s Public Policy Disfavors Bright-Line Tests of the Scope of Duty ........................................... 106 4. Crane’s Self-Serving Portrayal of Itself as a Victim of Judicial Injustice Should Not Sway this Court ...................................................................... 111 5. This Court Should Decline Crane’s Invitation to Substitute Foreign Law for Controlling New York Precedent ............................................................. 115 II. CRANE IS NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT UNDER THE COMPONENT PART DOCTRINE ......................................... 125 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 127 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Appalachian Ins. Co. v General Electric Co., 8 N.Y.3d 162, 863 N.E.2d 994 (2007) .......................................................... 54 Baum v. Eco-Tec, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 842 (3d Dep’t 2004) ................................................................. 24, 69 Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc., 288 AD.2d 148 (1st Dept, 2001) .................. 24, 26, 29, 53, 69, 71, 80-82, 89, 91, 94, 95, 97, 119 Call v. Banner Metals, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 1470 (4th Dept, 2007) ............................................... 47, 48, 57, 121 Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505 (1994) .................................................................................... 21 Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973) ..........................................................100, 103, 104, 109 Cooley v. Carter Wallace, 102 A.D.2d 642 (4th Dept, 1984) ........................ 41, 42, 51, 61, 101, 103, 108 Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984) ............................................... 23, 41, 52, 101, 107, 109 DeFazio v. Chesterton, 32 Misc. 3d 1235[A], 938 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2011 NY Slip Op 51588[U] [N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011] ........................................... 91, 92 Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995) .................................................................... 35, 107, 117 Dinardo v. City of New York, 13 N.Y.3d 872 (2009) .................................................................................... 21 Enright v. Lilly & Co., 77 N.Y.2d 377 ........................................................................................ 35, 116 Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136 (2002) .................................................................................. 107 Gateway I Group v. Park Ave. Physicians, P.C., 62 A.D.3d 141 ................................................................................................ 52 Gebo v. Black Clawson Co., 92 N.Y.2d 387 (1998) .............................................................. 37, 42, 110, 112 iv Gray v. R. L. Best Co., 78 A.D.3d 1346 (3rd Dept, 2010) ................................................................ 112 Greenberg v. Lorenz, 9 N.Y.2d 195 (1961) .............................................................................. 53, 109 Hamilton v Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 (2001) ...................................................................... 56, 99, 100 Hanson v. Honda Motor Co., 104 A.D.2d 850 (2nd Dept, 1984) ............................................................. 57, 68 Hoover v. New Holland North America, 23 N.Y.3d 41 (2014) ..................................................... 23, 43, 48, 51, 75, 109 In re: Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, 19 N.Y.3d 803 (2012) .................................................................................... 89 In Re: Eighth Judicial Dist. Asbestos Litig. [Drabczyk], 92 A.D.3d 1259 (4th Dept, 2012) .................. 27, 28, 54, 69, 82, 85, 87-89, 96 Kross v. Kelsey Hayes Co., 29 A.D.2d 901 (3rd Dept, 1968) ......................................................... 38, 39, 60 Leahy v. Mid-West Conveyor Co., 120 A.D.2d 16 (3rdDept, 1986) .................................................................... 126 Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232 (1998) .............................................................................passim Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd., 75 N.Y.2d 850 (1990) .................................................................................... 37 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 (1916) ........................................................................ 39, 60, 108 Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400 (4th Dept, 1958) ................................................................. 39, 60 Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Dummitt I], 36 Misc. 32 1234(A); 2012 N.Y.Misc LEXIS 4057 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) aff’d, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Dummitt II], 121 A.D.3d 230