Case Notes For Inconsequential Product Liability Actions

Paper Cut from Envelope; Physical Injuries; Emotional Distress
Cutty v. Sark (4th. Appellate Dist. Ct. 2009): Plaintiff sustained a significant paper cut to his left index finger (requiring a cold compress but no stitches) after attempting to open an envelope from his auto insurer without using a letter opener. The plaintiff also claimed to have suffered emotional distress after reviewing his insurer's announcement of a threefold increase in the premium notwithstanding that the vehicle was a "lemon" and was used mostly for short jaunts and for leaking oil onto the driveway. The trial court allowed defendant's motion to dismiss on all counts.
Held: No right of recovery for the finger injury because envelopes are inherently dangerous products, and plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by failing to use proper tools. No recovery for emotional distress; plaintiff failed to show but-for causation as his car was an embarrassment to the neighborhood.
Puncture “Grazing” from Pencil; Lost Wages
Schlemiel v. National Pencil Purveyors (2nd Dist. Ct., Appellate Div. 2011): Plaintiff, a clerk in the state benefits office, was “gesticulating” wildly with one of defendant’s products for emphasis, and stabbed himself in the right wrist (he was right-handed), grazing a minor artery. Consequently, plaintiff, who, in his professional capacity, required his right wrist to stamp “REJECTED” on various citizen application forms, missed 15 days of work (not including the annual departmental retreat).  Following a 3-day trial, the jury found for plaintiff and awarded $182,000 in compensatory damages plus $3,012.73 in lost wages. Defendant appealed claiming error in the jury instructions.
Held: No right of recovery; pencils are inherently dangerous products, and plaintiff was not in a protected class, because he was an experienced pencil user and serial gesticulator. Reversed on other grounds.

Bruised Knuckle from Punching and Screaming at Computer

Tsadik v. Frosty Computers, LLC (Supreme Judicial Court, 2011): Plaintiff suffered a bruised knuckle and some minor scarring as a result of repeatedly punching his computer and swearing at it until one of his vocal nodes gave out.  The case was tried jury-waived and the trial judge, crediting plaintiff’s testimony that the computer froze repeatedly, needed to be restarted constantly, and was incapable of following even simple commands, found for the plaintiff and awarded $1 million.  The SJC took the matter on direct appellate review.

Held: Computers are inherently dangerous products in that they are designed to elicit precisely the type of reaction exhibited by the plaintiff.  The court took judicial notice of the fact that, for a certain segment of the population (in which plaintiff was included), computers have never worked as advertised and never will. Under such a set of facts, there could be no recovery. Reversed.

Cracked Tooth from Removing Clothing Hang Tag

P. Mandelbaum v. Schmattes and Co., et al. (4th Appellate Div., 2005): Plaintiff cracked a tooth while trying to remove a hang tag from a newly-purchased undergarment when the plastic horizontal bar "refused" to come through the fabric. A jury awarded the cost of a dental visit plus reimbursement for the parking ticket suffered. Defendants appealed claiming plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of dentis crackius.
Held: Clothing hang tags are inherently dangerous products, and there can be no recovery when they are removed with the teeth. Appellant's request for rehearing on the grounds that "everybody in the world removes hang tags with their teeth" was denied en banc.

 Stubbed Toe from Kicking Cheap Cabinet Door

Schlimazel v. Norman the Door Man, Inc. (Appeals Court, 2008): Plaintiff stubbed his toe attempting to close defendant’s “shoddily-hinged” product with his foot. The motion judge allowed defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed.

Held: No right of recovery where it was undisputed that the cabinets were purchased from a store that has been having an “Everything Must Go!” sale for the past seven years, ensuring that the subject doors would never align properly. Moreover, plaintiff was contributorily negligent for stuffing the cabinet full of outdated menus and tchotchkes. Even absent such facts, there would have been no right of recovery because super-discounted cabinetry is an inherently dangerous product.  Summary judgment affirmed. 

Chipped Nail from De-Linking Paper Clips

Schmendrick v. No. 1 Paper Clip Emporium (2nd Appellate Div, 2001): Plaintiff chipped a nail while trying to separate a tortured and unruly clump of paper clips and suffered temporary disfigurement. Plaintiff's suit sought damages for pain and chipping. The motion judge granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff appealed claiming error in that the court failed to apply the precedent established by cases where litigants recovered for injuries sustained attempting to remove staples from book reports.

Held: No right of recovery because paper clips (like wire hangers) are known to clump together in conspiratorial fashion. Accordingly, paper clips are an inherently dangerous product whose perils are obvious to the average consumer.  Judgment affirmed.

 Boredom and Repetitive Motion Injury from Hand-Held Vacuum

Nudnick v. Vacuous Boys, Inc. (1^st Circuit Appellate Div., 2009): Plaintiff suffered a mild form of repetitive motion injury and also became slightly nauseous from running a hand-held mini-vacuum over the same three-inch area of a couch for several hours in a futile attempt to remove some cat hair. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for medical “consultations” as well as a refund. A jury awarded $22,000 for pain, $13,000 for suffering and $35,000 for pain & suffering. Defendant appealed claiming an abuse of judicial discretion.

Held: No right of recovery because defendant’s expert testified that no vacuum, no matter how fancy, can remove cat hair from a couch or anyplace else and the product manufacturer disclaimed all warranties in the manual even though no one ever reads the manual. Additionally, the appellate division ruled, sua sponte, that hand-held mini vacs are inherently dangerous products when used to try to remove cat hair from couches or kitty litter from automobile trunks because of the tendency to induce in the consumer an obsessive determination to achieve the unachievable, namely, spotlessness as pertaining to situations arising from co-habitation with cats. Reversed.