895 F. Supp. 2d 398
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff is a 93-year-old woman with limited mobility who relied on the Craigs for care and transportation.
- The Craigs purchased a three-wheel Go-Go Ultra X scooter for Plaintiff to help her shop and get around.
- The scooter was delivered in a box, assembled by the Craigs, and the Owner’s Manual was not read initially.
- Plaintiff was injured when the scooter allegedly tipped after encountering a lump in the driveway.
- Plaintiff alleged negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties, and defendants moved to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment.
- The court evaluated admissibility of expert Peter Chen under Rule 702 and addressed multiple theories of liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Chen’s testimony | Chen is qualified and reliable | Chen’s opinions are speculative and unsupported | Chen admissible; not excluded under Rule 702 |
| Strict liability design defect | Chen supports a design defect and feasible safer design | No feasible safer design established; insufficient causation | Issues of fact preclude summary judgment on design defect |
| Failure to warn | Warnings were inadequate and insufficiently conspicuous | Warnings adequate; plaintiff failed to read warnings | Questions of fact on warning adequacy; summary judgment denied for warning claim |
| Breach of implied warranties vs. strict liability | Warranty claims may coexist with tort claims | Claims are duplicative | Implied warranty claims not identical to tort claims; summary judgment denied on warranty claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (gatekeeping under Rule 702; reliability and relevance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court must ensure reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) ( Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and specialized knowledge)
- Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1995) (design vs. warning implications; whether design defect is actionable)
- Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (N.Y. 1983) (strict products liability and design/warning concepts)