## Facts

- QVC marketed a “T-Fal Jumbo Resistal Roaster,” manufactured by T-Fal, as suitable for cooking a turkey weighing up to 25 pounds.
- Loyda Castro purchased the roaster by mail and used it on Thanksgiving Day 1993 to cook a 20-pound turkey.
- While removing the roaster from the oven, Castro—wearing insulated mittens—could grip the small handles only with two fingers on each hand.
- The turkey tipped, Castro lost control, and hot drippings and fat spilled onto her foot and ankle.
- Castro suffered second- and third-degree burns, later experiencing scarring, intermittent paresthesia, and ankle swelling.
- The Castros sued QVC and T-Fal in diversity, alleging (among other theories) strict products liability based on defective design and breach of warranty based on the product’s fitness for its ordinary/marketed use.

## Issues

1. Under New York law, did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury separately on breach of warranty and instead charging only strict products liability?
2. If so, was the failure to give a warranty instruction harmless given the defense verdict on strict liability?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held the trial court erred by collapsing strict products liability and breach of warranty into a single strict-liability jury charge.
- The error was not harmless because the distinct warranty theory could have produced a different verdict on the same evidence.
- The court reversed in part and remanded for a new trial limited to the breach of warranty claim, leaving the defense verdict on strict liability intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, strict products liability and breach of warranty are distinct causes of action and ordinarily require separate jury instructions when both are pleaded and supported by evidence.
- Design-defect strict liability is assessed under a risk–utility framework, focusing on whether the product was not reasonably safe in light of foreseeable risks and feasible safer designs.
- Breach of warranty is evaluated by consumer-expectations and fitness concepts, including whether goods are fit for ordinary purposes and perform as a reasonable consumer would expect in light of marketing and representations.
- A product may fail consumer expectations for an advertised use (supporting warranty liability) even if it is not defective under risk–utility design-defect analysis (defeating strict liability).
- Omission of a separate warranty instruction is prejudicial when it prevents the jury from deciding a legally distinct theory that could succeed despite rejection of strict liability.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required separate jury instructions for strict design-defect liability and breach of warranty under New York law and ordered a new trial confined to the warranty claim because the combined charge could have altered the outcome.


Castro v. QVC Network, Inc., 139 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998)