Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc.
Citations: 81 A.D.2d 826; 438 N.Y.S.2d 602; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11483
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 4, 1981; New York; State Appellate Court
Defendant appeals an amended judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which favored plaintiffs following a jury verdict. The amended judgment is reversed, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event. The case involves a 2.5-year-old teapot manufactured by the defendant that exploded while plaintiff Mary Fox was using it, resulting in serious injuries. The trial was based on a theory of breach of an implied warranty of fitness. Defendant’s expert testified that the explosion was due to structural weakening from an impact with another object. Mrs. Fox denied any such impact but did not provide expert or other testimony to substantiate her claims about the cause of the accident. The court acknowledges that in products liability cases, a defect can be established through circumstantial evidence, allowing for inferences if a product was used normally and not damaged post-manufacture. However, if the defendant counters this inference, the plaintiff must provide direct evidence of the accident's cause. In this case, the defendant's expert testimony was unchallenged by any evidence from Mrs. Fox to explain the incident. Consequently, the court determined that the verdict was based on conjecture and could not be upheld. Thus, plaintiffs are granted the opportunity to present sufficient evidence to support their claim in a new trial. Judges Titone, J.P., Rabin, Margett, and Weinstein concur in this decision.