Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York appellate court held that summary judgment was warranted in a case alleging defective design and manufacture of logger boots.

Commercial logger Steven Lyall bought a pair of logger boots from the Kenco Work & Safety Store. While wearing the boots, which were designed and manufactured by Justin Boot Co. and Chippewa Boot Co., Lyall allegedly was injured when the chainsaw he was using kicked back and cut through the vamp of one of his boots. He sued Kenco, Justin Boot, and Chippewa Boot, alleging strict liability. The defense moved successfully for summary judgment.

Affirming, the appellate court found that a claim for manufacturing defect requires proof that a product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s hands and that the product did not perform as intended. Citing case law, the court added that proving a claim for defective design requires a plaintiff to show that a manufacturer marketed a product that was not reasonably safe as designed and that this was a substantial factor leading to a plaintiff’s injury.

Applying these principles, the court noted that the plaintiff here did not allege that his boots had any specific defect. The court rejected his assertion that because the boots lacked protection from chainsaw cuts, a fact issue existed regarding whether they were reasonably safe for their intended purpose. The boots conformed to applicable industry standards, the court said, which did not require that they be cut-resistant or contain Kevlar. Thus, the court concluded that as designed, the boots were reasonably safe for their intended use.

Finding its conclusion necessitated that the plaintiff’s remaining claims for breach of warranty and failure to warn also be dismissed, the court held that the trial court had properly dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Citation: Lyall v. Justin Boot Co., 2021 WL 1912542 (N.Y. App. Div. May 13, 2021).