Justice Perradotto's Dissenting Opinion in the Appellate Division, Fourth Department's opinion in Ramos v. Howard Indus., Inc. really hits the nail on the head. The case concerns a very difficult analysis practitioners frequently face when a product is discarded or destroyed, and the manufacturer is attempting to move for summary judgment to demonstrate no defect existed with the product.
In Ramos, the plaintiff was injured by a transformer -- manufactured by the defendant -- when it exploded. The transformer was no longer available, and the plaintiff claimed that the explosion occurred because of a design or manufacturing defect. The Majority denied the manufacturer's summary judgment motion, holding that the manufacturer did not even meet its burden on the motion because it merely pointed to gaps in the plaintiff's evidence. The defendant submitted evidence establishing that its transformers generally were designed and manufactured under state of the art conditions according to Niagara Mohawk's specifications and complied with all applicable industry standards, and that the transformer in question would have been individually tested to ensure compliance with customer specifications and industry requirements.
Justice Perradotto disagreed, noting
the majority is requiring defendant to make that same showing [one where the product is available] where the product is unavailable for inspection and testing. In my view, the majority thus is disregarding the particular facts of this case and is thereby creating a burden that is impossible for [the] defendant to meet and that is greater than that required by precedent.
She also points out that the Majority incorrectly required that the manufacturer eliminate a manufacturing defect as a cause of the accident.
Justice Peradotto's Dissenting Opinion crystallizes the exact issue and difficulty that arises when a product is spoliated, the plaintiff is attempting to prove the case circumstantially, and the defendant is left to defend itself without the product. The opinion is a required read.
Not really a spoliation decision-- actually, the majority expressly states that spoliation was not raised.
It is hard to tell from the opinions exactly what the proof on the motion consisted of. The defendant's expert said that "it [was] virtually impossible for a transformer with an internal fault to leave [defendant's] plant." What does that mean? The adjective clouds it for me. Was it impossible, or nearly impossible? Maybe that's splitting hairs, but we are talking about a summary judgment motion here. If the claim can't be made, then it'll get bounced by the jury, or Supreme Court will dismiss it at the close of proof. I get off Justice Peradotto's train of thought when she cites the PJI, actually. I seldom find that persuasive in the summary judgment context.
Posted by: Bill Altreuter | March 30, 2007 at 09:35 AM