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.
Polimeni v. Minolta Corp.
Citations: 227 A.D.2d 64; 653 N.Y.S.2d 429; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 787
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 29, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
Marilyn N. Polimeni, a former employee of the Department of State, operated a Minolta microfilm reader/printer from October 1988 to May 1991, during which she was exposed to liquid toner and claims to have become totally disabled. Polimeni and her husband filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Exxon Corporation (the manufacturer of Isopar G, a key component of the toner), Minolta Corporation (the manufacturer of the microfilm machine), and Coates Reprographics Inc. and Hilord Chemical Corporation (the toner suppliers). The plaintiffs' primary argument is that Polimeni was not warned about the health risks associated with the toner, which contains petroleum hydrocarbons. Exxon and Minolta sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting that their obligations to warn only extended to their immediate distributors under the bulk supplier and informed intermediary doctrines. However, the court disagreed, highlighting that a manufacturer has a duty to warn ultimate consumers of foreseeable risks associated with their products. The bulk supplier doctrine allows manufacturers to fulfill their duty by adequately warning distributors, which is based on the assumption that distributors are better positioned to inform consumers. Conversely, the informed intermediary doctrine, which is more limited in scope and typically applies to prescription drugs and medical devices, posits that warnings are intended for the intermediary (like a physician) who can assess the risks vs. benefits for the consumer. The court ultimately found that Exxon's claims for summary judgment were not sufficiently established. The informed intermediary doctrine is not applicable in purely commercial contexts, as a distributee may understand product qualities without recognizing associated health risks. Unlike physicians, distributees have no obligation to weigh risks against consumer benefits. The Supreme Court correctly denied Exxon’s summary judgment motion due to insufficient evidence that it sold Isopar G in bulk to Coates or Hilord. Furthermore, the adequacy of warnings provided by Exxon is a factual question, as the complex language used in the ventilating recommendations and the lack of evidence regarding Coates and Hilord's expertise prevent a legal determination of adequacy. The court also denied Minolta’s summary judgment motion, highlighting unresolved factual issues regarding its warning practices, specifically the absence of warnings on toner containers and the microfilm machine. The order is affirmed with costs.