## Facts

- Yun Tung Chow worked in a Manhattan restaurant kitchen and used a drain cleaner sold as Lewis Red Devil Lye, consisting of 100% sodium hydroxide crystals.
- Chow could not read English and did not read the product’s printed directions or warnings; he learned use practices by observing others.
- The label directions (not read by Chow) warned to wear protective eyewear and gloves, avoid contact with aluminum, and apply dry crystals into the drain before flushing.
- Chow’s usual method was to mix lye with water and pour the solution into the drain, then flush immediately.
- During an attempt to clear a clogged floor drain, Chow mixed several spoonfuls of lye with cold water in a dry aluminum container and poured the mixture into the drain.
- The solution splashed back into his face, causing severe burns and loss of vision in one eye.
- Chow and his wife sued the manufacturer/distributors and related entities on theories including defective design and failure to warn.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants, as summary-judgment movants on a design-defect claim, established as a matter of law that the product was reasonably safe for its intended use under a risk–utility analysis.
2. Whether Chow’s failure to read and follow the label directions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries so as to defeat the design-defect claim on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order insofar as it granted summary judgment dismissing the design-defect claim.
- The court held defendants did not meet their initial burden to show the product was reasonably safe for its intended use, i.e., that its utility outweighed its inherent danger.
- Conclusory assertions in an attorney affirmation that the product was inherently dangerous and that its dangers were commonly known were insufficient to support summary judgment.
- Because defendants failed to make the required evidentiary showing on reasonable safety and risk–utility, the burden did not shift to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact.
- The design-defect claim was remitted for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment in a design-defect products-liability case, the defendant must present evidence that the product is reasonably safe for its intended use, meaning the product’s utility outweighs its inherent danger.
- Generalized claims that a product is inherently dangerous, or that its dangers are well known, do not satisfy the movant’s burden without supporting proof relevant to risk–utility factors.
- A design-defect claim is analytically distinct from a failure-to-warn theory; even with warnings, a product may be defectively designed if it is not reasonably safe under risk–utility analysis.
- A plaintiff’s failure to read or follow warnings does not automatically establish sole proximate cause as a matter of law at the summary-judgment stage where the risk–utility record is not developed.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the design-defect claim to proceed because defendants did not support their summary-judgment motion with competent evidence demonstrating that the drain cleaner’s utility outweighed its dangers or otherwise establishing reasonable safety as a matter of law.


Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 29 (2011)