Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityCircumstantial proof of defectSummary judgmentCausationproducts liabilitycircumstantial evidencespecific defect not required

Facts

Sandra Speller died in a house fire that also injured her seven-year-old son, and it was undisputed that the fire originated in the kitchen. Plaintiffs alleged that defective wiring in a refrigerator manufactured by Whirlpool and sold by Sears caused the fire. Defendants moved for summary judgment, relying principally on a Fire Marshal report concluding that a stovetop grease fire, not the refrigerator, caused the blaze. Plaintiffs responded with expert depositions and an affidavit stating that the fire originated in the refrigerator's upper right quadrant and that the stove was not the source.

Issue

When a plaintiff in a products liability action cannot identify the precise defect because the product was destroyed, may the plaintiff defeat summary judgment through circumstantial evidence by rebutting the defendant's alternative-cause theory? More specifically, did plaintiffs here raise a triable issue of fact that the refrigerator, rather than a stovetop grease fire, caused the fire?

Rule

In a products liability case, a plaintiff need not prove a specific defect if the claim is established circumstantially. To do so, the plaintiff must show that the product did not perform as intended and must exclude all other causes of the product's failure not attributable to the defendant. On summary judgment, where causation is disputed, the court may not resolve competing expert proof unless only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts.

🔒

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 Buffalo, Nora Kim was injured when her clothes dryer caught fire and destroyed the rear control compartment, making inspection of the wiring impossible. She sues the dryer’s manufacturer and retailer, and in opposing summary judgment submits an electrical engineer’s deposition and a fire investigator’s affidavit stating that the fire began inside the dryer’s rear panel and that a nearby space heater identified by defendants was not the source.

Should the court require Nora to identify the precise failed wire or component in order to defeat summary judgment?

Explanation. The majority held that a plaintiff in a products liability case need not prove a specific defect when direct proof is unavailable, so long as the plaintiff proceeds circumstantially by showing the product did not perform as intended and excluding other causes not attributable to the defendant. Here, detailed expert proof placing the fire inside the dryer and ruling out the space heater is enough to avoid a requirement that Nora identify the exact failed part at summary judgment. (Derived from Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (n.d.).)