From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Liz v. William Zinsser & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

holding that the action should have been dismissed "as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner."

Summary of this case from Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Company

Opinion

August 3, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Freddy Liz allegedly sustained physical injuries when vapor from a can of BIN Primer Sealer Stain-Killer, a spray paint manufactured by the defendant, was ignited by a pilot light in the plaintiffs' kitchen. The plaintiff and his wife commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages based on negligence, strict product liability, and breach of implied and express warranties.

To the extent that the plaintiffs' causes of action are predicated upon a theory of failure to warn, they are preempted by the Federal Hazardous Substance Act ( see, Wallace v. Parks Corp., 212 A.D.2d 132; Warner v. American Fluoride Corp., 204 A.D.2d 1; Moss v. Parks Corp., 985 F.2d 736, 741, cert denied 509 U.S. 906). Further, to the extent that the plaintiffs' causes of action are based on a manufacturing defect theory, they also should have been dismissed because of the plaintiffs' spoliation of evidence ( see, Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170; Lee v. Boyle-Midway Household Prods., 792 F. Supp. 1001).

Finally, the court erred in not dismissing those causes of action predicated on a design defect theory, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner ( see, Voss v. Black Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 108).

Miller, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Liz v. William Zinsser & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

holding that the action should have been dismissed "as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner."

Summary of this case from Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Company
Case details for

Liz v. William Zinsser & Co.

Case Details

Full title:FREDDY LIZ et al., Respondents, v. WILLIAM ZINSSER CO., Appellant. (And a…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 3, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 619

Citing Cases

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Company

Voss v. Black Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 108, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 402 (1983) ("The plaintiff, of course,…

Fada Industries, Inc. v. Falchi Building Co.

Cent. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Tumerson's Elec., Inc., __ A.D.2d __ 721 N.Y.S.2d 92 [holding that where a…