Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Duty to Warn and Third-Party Conduct: A Look at Two Recent New York Cases
In the past year, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, issued two decisions addressing both the scope of a defendant's duty to warn in negligence and products liability actions, and the scope of tort liability in actions predicated upon third-party conduct. In In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litigation (N.Y.C. Asbestos), No. 83, 2016 WL 3495191 (N.Y. June 28, 2016), the court considered the circumstances under which a manufacturer of a non-hazardous product has a duty to warn against dangers arising from the product's use in combination with a hazardous product manufactured by a third party. In Pasternack v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, No. 112, 2016 WL 3543713 (N.Y. June 30, 2016), the court considered: 1) whether laboratories and related entities have a common law duty to comply with federal regulations and guidelines governing drug-testing procedures that are unrelated to preserving the scientific integrity of the testing process; and 2) whether a plaintiff who suffers damages as a result of a third party's reliance on a false representation can state a claim for fraud.
Historical Backdrop
More than 20 years ago, the court addressed the issue of a manufacturer's duty to warn in the context of the joint use of two products in Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber, 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992). In Rastelli, the court set forth several factors relevant to whether a manufacturer must warn against the dangers arising from the combined use of the manufacturer's non-defective product with a defective product produced by a third party. Id. at 298. Holding in favor of the manufacturer, Goodyear, the court concluded that Goodyear had no duty to warn against risks associated with the use of its tire in conjunction with another company's defective rim assembly because Goodyear “did not contribute to the alleged defect in [the] product, had no control over it, and did not produce it.” Id. Since the decision in Rastelli, several Appellate Division decisions have held that a manufacturer owes a duty to warn against dangers arising from the joint use of its product when the third party's product “is essential to the intended function of the manufacturer's product.” In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig., 2016 WL 3495191, at *30 (collecting cases).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?