## Facts

- John Ramos, a Niagara Mohawk lineman, was injured in June 1997 while installing an electrical transformer manufactured by Howard Industries, Inc.
- Ramos initially reported to his employer and doctors that he was injured when he reached out of an aerial bucket during installation.
- More than two years later, Ramos asserted for the first time that the transformer exploded after he energized it, causing him to fall within the bucket and injure his back.
- By the time Ramos claimed an explosion, the transformer could not be located for inspection or testing.
- Ramos filed a products-liability action in May 2000 alleging defective design and manufacturing.
- Howard moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer is entitled to summary judgment in a products-liability action where the product is unavailable, the manufacturer presents competent evidence of no defect, and the plaintiff fails to offer evidence excluding other causes of the alleged failure not attributable to the manufacturer.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.
- The court held that Howard established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through competent evidence that the transformer was not defective.
- The court held that Ramos failed to raise a triable issue of fact because he did not present evidence excluding other potential causes of the transformer’s alleged failure not attributable to Howard.
- The complaint was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- A products-liability claim may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including when the product is unavailable.
- To rely on circumstantial proof of a defect, a plaintiff must present evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the product did not perform as intended and must exclude other causes of the failure not attributable to the defendant.
- On summary judgment, if the manufacturer makes a prima facie showing—through competent evidence—that the product was not defective, the plaintiff must respond with evidence satisfying the circumstantial-evidence standard, including exclusion of other reasonable nonmanufacturer causes.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that, even without the product for inspection, a plaintiff must provide circumstantial evidence supporting defect and excluding other likely causes; because Ramos did not do so after Howard’s prima facie showing of no defect, summary judgment for Howard was required and the action was dismissed.


Ramos v. Howard Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 218, 855 N.Y.S.2d 412, 885 N.E.2d 176 (N.Y. 2008)