LUGO v. LJN TOYS, LTD.


75 N.Y.2d 850 (1990)

Yessenia Lugo, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Mildred Lopez, et al., Respondents, v. LJN Toys, Ltd., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided February 20, 1990.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph M. Buderwitz, Anthony Caputo and Joseph J. Buderwitz, Jr., for appellant.

John E. Fitzgerald and Robert C. Agee for respondents.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur in memorandum.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when the infant plaintiff was struck in the eye by part of a toy manufactured by defendant and thrown by a playmate. They claim that the toy, a doll known as "Voltron-Defender of the Universe", was a replica of a well-known television cartoon character who overcame enemies by hurling his shield at them. The part of the doll that struck the infant plaintiff was detachable and described variously as a spinning "shield", "blade" or "star" with eight points around its circumference. Plaintiffs allege the product, marketed as suitable for children age four and older, was defective because improperly designed and because marketed without adequate warnings.

A manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results to another when the product is used for its intended purpose or for an unintended but reasonably foreseeable purpose (see, Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 N.Y.2d 376, 385-386; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 A.D.2d 204, 206). Plaintiff has submitted expert evidence that, based upon customs and standards in the toy safety community, the part was defective because detachable from the doll and that throwing it was foreseeable because of the extensive television exposure in which Voltron did so. This was sufficient response to defendant's motion for summary judgment to establish questions for the jury of whether the product was defective and reasonably safe for its intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use.

Order affirmed, etc.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases