A product can injure someone even when the user did nothing unusual. New York law allows certain claims when a product is not reasonably safe because of its design, because a unit was made incorrectly, or because warnings and instructions were inadequate. Bisogno & Meyerson, LLP handles product liability matters for people in Brooklyn, Staten Island, and throughout New York City from 7018 Fort Hamilton Pkwy, Brooklyn, NY 11228. Staten Island and other borough clients are represented from that Brooklyn office.
The defendant may be a manufacturer, a component maker, a distributor, or a retailer. The product may be a consumer item, a tool, industrial machinery, or a vehicle part.
For the practice overview, see our product liability lawyer hub. For an educational walk-through of defect types and what to keep after an incident, read defective products. Product work is part of the firm’s personal injury law practice.
Defective Products Under New York Law
New York recognizes strict products liability, negligence, and breach-of-warranty theories. Strict liability focuses on the product and whether it was not reasonably safe when it left the seller, rather than on a single careless act by an employee. Negligence still matters when the proof shows a failure to use ordinary care in design, testing, inspection, or warnings. Warranty claims may arise from statements or implied promises about the product.
A plaintiff generally must show that the product was defective, that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury, and that the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable way. Substantial change or misuse after sale can be a defense.
Defective design
A design claim asks whether the product, as conceived, was not reasonably safe. New York courts often weigh the risks of the design against its utility, including the feasibility of a safer alternative design, the cost of that alternative, and the ability to maintain the product’s purpose. The question is not whether any injury was possible. Many useful products carry residual risk. The question is whether the chosen design was reasonably safe in light of available alternatives and the harm it could cause.
Design cases usually need technical analysis. Drawings, testing files, and comparison designs may be relevant. Retaining a consultant is a case-management decision, not a prediction of the result.
Defective manufacture
A manufacturing defect is a flaw in a particular unit. The product as designed may be acceptable, but this item departed from the intended specifications. Examples can include a missing fastener, contaminated material, a weld that does not meet spec, or a batch that was assembled out of process.
Preserving the actual product is often critical. If the unit is discarded, repaired without documentation, or returned without a hold, it can be harder to show how it differed from the design. Photographs, lot numbers, serial numbers, and the original packaging help even when the product itself is later inspected in a lab.
Failure to warn
A product that is properly designed and built can still support a claim if the seller did not give adequate warnings or instructions about latent dangers and reasonably foreseeable uses. Adequacy looks at content, placement, and whether the warning could reach the person who needed it. Some risks are obvious. Others are not. The law treats those situations differently. Later-added warnings, recall notices, and changes to manuals can be relevant to what the seller knew and when.
Who May Be Responsible
New York’s chain-of-distribution approach can reach more than the company whose name is on the box. A component manufacturer, assembler, importer, distributor, or retailer may be a proper defendant depending on that party’s role. Identifying the correct entities is part of the investigation, especially when a product was rebranded or sold through several intermediaries.
Workplace injuries add another layer. Workers compensation may cover medical care and wage replacement as to the employer. A defective machine, tool, or safety device may still support a third-party product claim against a non-employer. Those two paths use different forums and different measures of loss. They should be coordinated so that Board liens and consent rules are not overlooked. See also third-party workers compensation.
If a product-related injury is fatal, a wrongful death claim may need a separate review. New York wrongful-death filings follow their own parties and damage rules.
Evidence, Deadlines, and How Our Firm Handles These Claims
Keep the product, the box, manuals, and receipts if you have them. Write down the date, place, and how the product was being used. Identify witnesses. Photograph injuries and the scene. Save recall emails or retailer notices. Do not post a running narrative of the incident online. Medical records connect the injury to the event. Maintenance logs matter for equipment that was serviced. If an employer or store still has the item, a prompt written request to preserve it can reduce the chance it is thrown out.
Many New York personal injury lawsuits, including product claims, are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, with different rules possible depending on the theory, the defendant, and when the injury was discovered. Claims involving public entities can have much shorter notice periods. Deadlines are strict. They should be checked against the facts, not assumed from a website.
Bisogno & Meyerson, LLP has concentrated in personal injury and workers’ compensation since 1994. Product cases are part of that injury practice. We review medical proof, chain-of-sale documents, and whether design, manufacture, or warning theories fit the facts. That review may conclude that a claim is not viable.
Talk With Bisogno & Meyerson, LLP
If you were hurt by a product in New York City, our firm can review the incident, the product, and possible legal theories. A free consultation is a discussion of facts and options. It is not a promise of liability or of any recovery.
Call (718) 745-8880 or contact us. Attorneys on the site are Patrick Bisogno, Esq.; Michael C. Meyerson, Esq.; and George A. Silva, Esq.
Attorney Advertising. This page is general information from Bisogno & Meyerson, LLP, not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship.