Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a product liability action concerning repetitive stress injuries (RSI) from computer keyboard use. Originally, the Supreme Court of New York County granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint due to the statute of limitations, based on the precedent that a cause of action accrues upon the initial use of a defective product. However, the Court of Appeals later established a new rule, stating that such a cause of action accrues either at the onset of symptoms or upon the last use of the product, whichever occurs first. This new rule was applied to the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs, diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, filed their claims within three years of symptom onset—August 1990 for Plaintiff Kelly and October 1991 for Plaintiff Andrews. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment, denied the motion to dismiss, and reinstated the complaint, as the claims were filed within the statutory period. The decision was unanimous among the justices.
Legal Issues Addressed
Accrual of Cause of Action for Product Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the legal principle that the cause of action for product liability due to repetitive stress injuries accrues either at the onset of symptoms or upon the last use of the product, whichever occurs first. This principle allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed as they were filed within the statutory period.
Reasoning: On November 25, 1997, the Court of Appeals established a new rule stating that the cause of action accrues either at the onset of symptoms or upon the last use of the keyboard, whichever occurs first.
Reversal of Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the summary judgment that dismissed the complaint based on the statute of limitations, due to the adoption of a new accrual rule by the Court of Appeals.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the previous order, denied the summary judgment motion, and reinstated the complaint.
Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The statute of limitations for product liability cases involving repetitive stress injuries was interpreted to start running based on the new accrual rule, which led to the reversal of the initial dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiffs filed their claims within three years of symptom onset, making their claims timely.
Reasoning: Both dates fall within the three-year limit before the lawsuit was filed, thus their claims are not barred by the statute of limitations.