SPELLER V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. 790 N.E.2d 252 (N.Y. 2003) CASE BRIEF

SPELLER V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.

790 N.E.2d 252 (N.Y. 2003)

NATURE OF THE CASE: In this products liability action, Sears (D), a product manufacturer and retailer, was first denied then granted summary judgment by the Appellate Division dismissing Speller's (P) complaint.

FACTS: Sandra Speller died in a house fire that also injured her 7-year-old son. It is undisputed that the fire originated in the kitchen. P sued D, Whirlpool Corporation and the property owner alleging negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty. P asserted that the fire was caused by defective wiring in the refrigerator, a product manufactured by Whirlpool and sold by D. After discovery, Ds moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint. Ds rejected the refrigerator as the source of the fire, instead contending that a stovetop grease fire was the cause of the conflagration. P submitted excerpts from the depositions of two experts and an affidavit from a third, as well as other materials. The experts refuted the conclusions reached in the Fire Marshall's report, opining that the fire started in the upper right quadrant of the refrigerator, an area with a concentration of electrical wiring. All three rejected the stove as the source of the fire. P submitted the deposition of a Whirlpool engineer retained as an expert by Ds wherein he acknowledged that a fire would not occur in a refrigerator unless the product was defective. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, and the Appellate Division reversed and granted the motion, dismissing the complaint as against D. Ds' evidence suggesting an alternative cause of the fire shifted the burden to P to come forward with specific evidence of a defect. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner