## Facts

- John Myrlak, a PATH assistant trainmaster, was injured while seated at work in a movable desk chair at a control-center console.
- After approximately one hour and forty-five minutes of sitting, Myrlak heard a loud noise; the chair back cracked, gave way, and the chair and Myrlak fell backward, leaving the chair back parallel to the floor.
- Coworkers heard clicking/ratcheting or grinding-gear sounds and then observed the collapsed chair back; one described the back as flopping, and another found the chair lacked back support the next day.
- The chair was manufactured by Girsberger Industries, Inc. and was one of 500 identical chairs purchased by PATH.
- The chairs were delivered months earlier and placed into service about five weeks before the incident.
- Myrlak pursued a strict products liability claim against Girsberger alleging a manufacturing defect; his expert could not identify a specific defect or state with certainty which component failed.

## Issues

1. Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to a strict products liability claim alleging a manufacturing defect when the plaintiff cannot identify a specific defect.
2. What inference instruction governs proof of a manufacturing defect by circumstantial evidence when direct proof of a specific defect is unavailable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the traditional negligence doctrine of res ipsa loquitur generally is not applicable in strict products liability manufacturing-defect cases.
- The Court adopted Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 3 (the “indeterminate product defect” test) as the appropriate framework for jury instructions in such cases.
- The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling requiring a res ipsa instruction on the strict liability claim against Girsberger.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the § 3 approach.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur is a negligence doctrine tied to inferring fault and, in some applications, shifting burdens; it does not fit strict products liability, which focuses on product condition rather than manufacturer conduct.
- In manufacturing-defect strict liability cases lacking proof of a specific defect, a jury may infer a defect from circumstantial evidence under Restatement (Third) § 3 when:
  - the incident is of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect; and
  - the incident was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than a product defect (e.g., abnormal use or other reasonable secondary causes).
- Under § 3, the inference is permissive and the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that plaintiffs who cannot identify a specific manufacturing defect may rely on a products-liability-specific circumstantial inference under Restatement (Third) § 3, while res ipsa loquitur and its negligence-based structure generally do not apply to strict products liability manufacturing-defect claims.


Myrlak v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 157 N.J. 84, 723 A.2d 45 (1999)