Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York appellate court held that the manufacturer of a used-oil heating system was not liable to a worker who was injured when the heater’s oil storage tank exploded at an auto repair shop.

Scott Kammerzell worked at Hudson Valley Automotive, which purchased a used-oil heating system from Clean Burn, Inc. The system consisted of a raised furnace and a used-oil storage tank, which also served as a work bench. The bench contained a warning not to weld or allow an open flame within 35 feet of the oil supply tank. A Hudson Valley employee used a saw to cut metal on top of the tank, which produced sparks and led to an explosion that injured Kammerzell. He sued Clean Burn, alleging strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. The defense moved successfully for summary judgment.

Affirming, the appellate court held that to prevail on a summary judgment motion in a strict products liability case, a defendant must present prima facie evidence that its product was not defective or that an accident resulted from other causes. Citing case law, the court added that a products liability plaintiff must show that the alleged defect is a substantial cause of the events resulting in injury. Here, the court found, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that its heating system was not defective and that it was not a substantial factor leading to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact opposing the defense arguments.

Accordingly, the court held that summary judgment for the manufacturer was proper.

Citation: Kammerzell v. Clean Burn, Inc., 165 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).