Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsProducts LiabilityDesign DefectForeseeable MisuseFailure to Warnproducts liabilitydefective conditiondesign defect

Facts

The infant plaintiff was struck in the eye by a detachable part of a toy doll manufactured by defendant and thrown by a playmate. The toy was a "Voltron-Defender of the Universe" doll, alleged to replicate a television cartoon character who defeated enemies by throwing his shield. The part that struck plaintiff was detachable and was described as a spinning shield, blade, or eight-pointed star. Plaintiffs alleged the toy, marketed for children age four and older, was defective because it was improperly designed and sold without adequate warnings.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment by raising jury questions as to whether the toy was defective and not reasonably safe when used in an intended way or in an unintended but reasonably foreseeable way, namely throwing the detachable part.

Rule

A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for resulting injury when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose. On summary judgment, plaintiff may defeat the motion by submitting evidence sufficient to raise jury questions as to whether the product was defective and reasonably safe for its intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Mesa Playworks sells a plastic action figure with a detachable circular accessory. In the streaming shorts released with the toy line, the character repeatedly launches that accessory at opponents. Six-year-old Owen is injured when his friend throws the accessory at recess, and Owen's mother sues for design defect after offering an expert affidavit that toy-safety customs treat detachable hard projectiles for young children as unsafe.

Mesa Playworks moves for summary judgment, arguing the toy was not being used for its intended purpose because the accessory was thrown separately from the figure. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a manufacturer may be liable when a defective product causes injury during intended use or an unintended but reasonably foreseeable use. Here, the plaintiff submitted expert evidence on defect and evidence that throwing the accessory was foreseeable because the product's associated media depicted that conduct. That is enough to create triable issues on defect and reasonable safety, so summary judgment should be denied. (Derived from Lugo v. LJN Toys, Ltd. (n.d.).)