Senchyshyn v. BIC Sport North America, Inc., 6:17-cv-00162

Background

Plaintiff Sarah Senchyshyn bought a BIC Sport paddleboard in New York (June 2016). The Board has a polystyrene core, fiberglass wrap, and plastic skin; seams were finished manually.
Within weeks of frequent use she developed hand pain, ulcers, and observed small translucent fibers protruding from her fingers; she collected samples and stopped using the Board.
Medical imaging and biopsies did not identify foreign bodies, but Plaintiff’s physician documented "questionable foreign bodies" and Plaintiff preserved material she removed from her hands.
Plaintiff sued (Feb. 2017) asserting manufacturing- and design-defect strict liability claims, failure to warn, express/implied warranty, negligence theories, and punitive damages.
Plaintiff relied on materials expert Arvind Rao (SEM/EDS testing) to link Board-seam fibers to hand samples; defendant moved for summary judgment and to exclude Rao. The court admitted Rao but granted summary judgment on several claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Rao (materials expert)	Rao’s SEM/EDS testing links Board fibers to samples from Plaintiff’s hands; methodology reliable.	Rao’s opinions speculative, excluded tests, and misread fiber orientations.	Rao admitted: methodology (visual, SEM, EDS) reliable; disagreements with defendant’s expert go to weight, not admissibility.
Was the Board defective (manufacturing)	Gap/exposed fibers in seam from finishing process made Board defectively finished and capable of shedding fiber.	Manufacturing/process was state-of-the-art; no evidence of defect.	Triable issue exists on manufacturing defect based on Rao’s analysis; manufacturing-defect claim may proceed as to emotional injuries but physical injury causation fails.
Causation of physical injuries	Fibers removed from hands match Board fibers; treating physicians said findings were consistent with fiberglass exposure.	No medical proof linking fibers to symptoms; defense medical expert said injuries not caused by fiberglass; treating physicians’ opinions insufficient or inadmissible.	Summary judgment for defendant as to Plaintiff’s physical injuries: court excluded Dr. Griger’s causation opinion (unreliable), found Dr. Russin’s opinion equivocal, and held Plaintiff failed to prove causation.
Emotional/psychological injury damages	Plaintiff alleged and produced evidence of psychological/emotional injury.	Defendant’s motion did not address emotional injuries.	Claims for emotional/psychological injury survive; summary judgment did not dispose of those damages.
Design defect (strict liability & negligence)	Board design may have allowed exposed fibers; safer design feasible.	Plaintiff produced no evidence of an alternative, safer design.	Design-defect claims dismissed for failure to show feasible safer alternative.
Failure to warn	Plaintiff argues absence of warnings regarding fiberglass hazard.	Defendant had no notice/knowledge of fiberglass hazard; no reason to warn.	Failure-to-warn claim dismissed: Plaintiff did not show defendant knew or should have known the danger.
Breach of express warranty	Plaintiff relied on manufacturer/distributor warranty statements in purchase.	Plaintiff did not rely on any express warranty in buying the Board.	Express-warranty claim dismissed for lack of reliance.
Punitive damages	Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for defendant’s conduct.	Defendant argues no basis for punitive damages; plaintiff did not defend claim.	Punitive damages claim dismissed as abandoned/no evidence of willful misconduct.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and genuine-dispute instruction)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden at summary judgment and entitlement when opponent lacks evidence on an essential element)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial-court gatekeeping for expert admissibility)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert principles apply to all expert technical testimony)
Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 450 N.E.2d 204 (N.Y. 1983) (New York products-liability elements: defect and causation)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (nonmovant must do more than show metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (courts may exclude expert testimony where there is an analytical gap between data and opinion)