## Facts

- A fatal fire occurred on January 13, 2003, at a Brooklyn home owned by Antoneen Darden-McCall, where her sons Matthew and Marques lived.
- Cassandra Pierre-Louis (decedent) was a guest of Marques McCall at the home on the day of the fire.
- Investigators attributed the fire to a portable oil-filled space heater located in the basement.
- The heater was manufactured by DeLonghi America, Inc. and sold by Home Depot, Inc.; Darden purchased it the day before the fire.
- Matthew McCall removed the heater from its packaging and unintentionally placed it upside down; it was undisputed he was the only user before the fire.
- The fire damaged the home and an adjacent building and caused the decedent’s death.
- The plaintiff, individually and as administratrix, alleged design and/or manufacturing defects and failure to warn, including failure to warn against upside-down use.

## Issues

1. Whether the manufacturer and retailer established entitlement to summary judgment by showing the heater was not defective or that any defect was not a substantial factor in causing the fire and death.
2. Whether the heater’s upside-down placement constituted unforeseeable misuse negating duty to warn or proximate cause as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order denying summary judgment to DeLonghi and Home Depot.
- The movants failed to make a prima facie showing that the product was not defective or that any defect was not a substantial factor in causing the injury.
- Issues concerning defect, causation, foreseeable misuse, and adequacy of warnings remained for the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer may be liable for placing a defective product into the stream of commerce that causes injury.
- On summary judgment in a products-liability case, the movant must show either (a) no defect, or (b) that any defect was not a substantial factor in causing the injury; failure to meet this burden requires denial of the motion.
- Questions about design defect, warning adequacy, and whether misuse was foreseeable commonly present fact issues that preclude summary judgment where the record does not eliminate disputes.
- A retailer in the distribution chain may face strict products-liability exposure and is not entitled to dismissal on summary judgment where triable issues of defect and causation persist.

## Conclusion

The court left the products-liability and failure-to-warn claims against the manufacturer and retailer for trial because they did not conclusively negate defect or causation, and the alleged upside-down use did not eliminate factual disputes regarding foreseeable misuse and warning adequacy.


Pierre-Louis v. DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 A.D.3d 859, 887 N.Y.S.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2009)