Products Liability Law Reporter

Godwin Boateng parked his 2013 BMW X5, which was equipped with soft-close doors, on the right side of a narrow, residential street. He stepped out of the vehicle and waited for a truck that was approaching. Boateng moved backward while his right hand was behind his back and touching the driver-side door around the area of the door handle. The door then closed on his right thumb, amputating the tip.

Boateng sued BMW AG, BMW of North America, LLC, and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, alleging design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and violation of N.Y. Gen. Business Law §349. The plaintiff argued that the defense had engaged in consumer-oriented conduct when it issued information regarding the safety and risks of its soft-close equipped door and that the defendant’s conduct was likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. Further, the plaintiff asserted that BMW’s practices were misleading and that the public was prevented from knowing the true dangers of soft-close doors.

The jury awarded approximately $1.9 million on the plaintiff’s §349 claim. The court denied the defense motion for remittitur of the verdict, which included over $255,300 for past loss of earnings.

Citation: Boateng v. BMW, No. 17-CV-209 (KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Avinoam Y. Cohen, Valley Stream, N.Y.; and David J. Austin, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Comment: In Ratcliffe v. BRP U.S., Inc., 2024 WL 4728893 (D. Me. Nov. 8, 2024), Stephen Ratcliffe suffered significant injuries when a Can-Am Maverick X3, a utility terrain vehicle, overturned. He sued manufacturer BRP U.S., Inc., and distributor Tidd’s Sport Shop, Inc., alleging negligence and strict liability. The plaintiff filed a motion in limine, asking the court to preclude evidence or argument that BRP’s design of the vehicle complied with the off-road industry’s voluntary safety standards for side-by-side vehicles published by the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA). The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion. The court reasoned, in part, that prior case law from the court, as well as from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, has permitted the introduction of evidence of compliance with industry standards as relevant to and probative of the defendant’s due care regarding the design and manufacture of the product and for the purpose of discrediting plaintiff’s expert testimony. The court concluded that the ROHVA standards were relevant to whether the product here posed an unreasonable danger in its foreseeable use, adding that the plaintiff may request a limiting instruction to avoid the risk of juror confusion on whether the standards are dispositive.

See also Turner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2024 WL 4455330 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2024). There, following a crash involving her Mercedes, Renea Turner filed a lawsuit seeking damages for breach of warranty, products liability, and breach of duty against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. The defendant moved to set aside an entry of default. Granting the motion, the district court found that the defendant’s quick action to retain counsel and move to set aside the default entry after mistakenly listing the plaintiff’s complaint as closed weighed in favor of the defense. The court also found that its ruling would not prejudice the plaintiff because the case was in its early stages and there was no indication of prejudice beyond mere delay. Moreover, the defense has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing res judicata, a meritorious defense. Consequently, the court set aside the entry of default and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment.