Suttner v. Crane Co.

Case Updates

The court affirmed the order below, holding that a manufacturer has a duty to warn about a product’s danger arising from the “known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product” when used in connection with a third-party product that, “as a matter of design, mechanics, or economic necessity,” necessarily enables the manufacturer’s product to function as intended.

The U.S. Chamber urged the New York Court of Appeals to reaffirm the well-settled principle of tort law that manufacturers are not liable for “failure to warn” about the hazards of products manufactured by other manufacturers. The case arises out of a lawsuit alleging that a valve manufacturer failed to warn users of the potential harms of asbestos-containing replacements parts manufactured and installed by other companies.

According to the Chamber’s brief, the plaintiff’s liability theory represents a departure from mainstream products liability tradition and condones a vaguely-formulated, open-ended duty to warn that is neither administrable nor fair. The brief also explains that the plaintiff’s approach is out of step with the nearly universal decision patterns of other jurisdictions to consider the issue.

Former Professor James A. Henderson, Jr. and Michael H. Park of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC represented the Chamber.