S.F. v Archer Daniels Midland Co, Cargill Inc, Ingredion Inc, Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC and Roquette America Inc (2014) H&FLR 2015-19
United States Court of Appeals (Second Circuit)
11 December 2014
Coram: Chin and Carney JJ, Sweet DJ
Appearing for the Plaintiff: John Michael Hayes (of Law Office of J. Michael Hayes)
Appearing for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants (Archer, Cargill, Ingredion, and Tate): Stephen Victor D’Amore, Dan K. Webb, Scott P. Glauberman, Cornelius M. Murphy and William P. Ferranti (all of Winston & Strawn LLP) and Kevin M. Hogan (of Phillips Lytle LLP)
Appearing for the Fifth Defendant (Roquette): David Ray Adams (of Hurwitz & Fine PC) and Peter N Wang (of Foley & Lardner LLP)
Catchwords: New York – High Fructose Corn Syrup – diabetes – negligence – products liability – defective design – market share liability
Facts: The plaintiff was the father of SEF, an infant who had consumed high fructose corn syrup, of which the defendants were (and are) major manufacturers. It was alleged that this product was a substanial factor in SEF’s development of Type 2 diabetes. SF brought proceedings against the defendants based on negligence, gross negligence, strict products liability (in relation to defective design), and failure to warn. The defendants sought and were granted summary dismissal of the claim: S.E.F. v Archer Daniels Midland Co (2014) H&FLR 2014-8. The plaintiff appealed.
Held: Per curiam, dismissing the appeal, that –
1. In general, New York law views claims based on strict products liability and negligence to be functionally synonymous. To state a claim for defective design in relation to a products liability (or, by extension, negligence) claim, the plaintiff must allege that the the product as designed posed a substantial risk of harm, that it was practicable to design the product more safely, and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing injury. The plaintiff’s claim failed because she did not allege a safer alternative design.
Lewis v Abbott Labs, No. 08 Civ. 7480(SCR)(GAY), 2009 WL 2231701 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009); Voss v Black & Decker Manufacturing Co, 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983); Goldin v Smith & Nephew Inc., No. 12 Civ. 9217(JPO), 2013 WL 1759575 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013).
2. Obiter, a complete ban on a product is not a permissible “safer alternative design” in a design defect case
Clinton v Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., 498 F.Supp.2d 639 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) and Adamo v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 11 NY.3d 545 (2008), considered.
3. The case was not appropriate for analysis under the principle of “market share liability” for the substantially the same reasons as those outlined by the trial court.
Hymowitz v Eli Lilly & Co, 73 NY.2d 487 (1989), considered.
The Court’s judgment is available here.