Gambardella v. Tricam Industries, Inc.

Background

Leslie Gambardella sued Tricam Industries, Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., alleging design and manufacturing defects, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. She testified that on February 15, 2017, she was standing on a Tricam AS-3 Type II stepstool to reach into a closet when she heard a snapping sound and fell. She fractured her right foot and ankle. She had used the stepstool previously without noticing wobbling or instability, but she did not read its warnings or instructions or inspect it for damage before the accident. After the fall, she saw that the stepstool’s right back leg was bent inward.

Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of Gambardella’s expert, Dr. William Marletta, and sought summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a required issue.

Expert Testimony

The court found that Dr. Marletta qualified as an expert. Although he was not an engineer and had not designed or manufactured a ladder or stepstool, he had graduate degrees in occupational health and safety, had worked as an engineering inspector, and had performed accident reconstruction and safety consulting involving ladders since 1985. The court stated that the defendants’ challenges to these qualifications concerned the weight and credibility of his testimony, which could be tested through cross-examination, rather than whether he could testify at all.

The court allowed Dr. Marletta to testify that the stepstool showed no signs of abuse, that it failed during reasonable and intended use, and that stress marks or discoloration on the rails were related to stress and failure of the metal. These opinions were based on his review of Gambardella’s interrogatory responses, a Tricam product webpage, and his June 7, 2019 inspection of the stepstool.

The court barred Dr. Marletta from testifying that the incident qualified under a legal doctrine involving an inference of negligence because that was a legal conclusion. The court also excluded his opinions that Tricam had previously identified the same manufacturing defect and that a washer, larger fastener, or deburring process would have prevented the failure. The court found that these opinions relied on a different stepstool made of steel rather than aluminum, with different dimensions, and did not provide sufficient facts, testing, or explanation connecting that product to Gambardella’s stepstool. The court also excluded his opinion about the significant causes of the accident because he did not explain the methods or testing supporting it.

The court further stated that it would not consider additional information in Dr. Marletta’s September 24, 2019 affirmation because it was an untimely attempt to add to his expert report after the expert-disclosure deadlines.

Product-Liability Claims

Applying New York law, the court held that a manufacturing-defect claim requires proof that the product failed to perform as intended because of a flaw in the manufacturing process. A design-defect claim requires proof that the product’s intended design was not reasonably safe and that a feasible safer alternative design would have prevented the injury. A failure-to-warn claim requires evidence that an inadequate warning caused the injury.

The court denied summary judgment on the manufacturing-defect claim. Although Gambardella had no direct proof of a defect, her testimony that she heard the stepstool crack while using it, together with her testimony that she had previously used it without problems and had stood on it for several seconds before the sound, could allow a jury to infer that the product did not perform as intended.

The court granted summary judgment on the design-defect claim. Without the excluded portions of Dr. Marletta’s testimony, Gambardella had not provided evidence of an inherent design defect or a feasible safer design. The court also noted that she had not excluded other possible causes of the fall.

The court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim. Gambardella presented no evidence that the warnings or instructions were inadequate or that different warnings would have prevented her fall. She testified that she had not read the warnings or instructions before the accident.

Warranty Claims

The court denied summary judgment on the implied-warranty claim. An implied warranty requires that a product be fit for its ordinary purpose when sold. Gambardella’s testimony that the stepstool collapsed while she was using it in its customary and intended manner created a factual dispute about whether it was fit for that purpose.

The court granted summary judgment on the express-warranty claim. Gambardella provided no evidence of an express warranty or that she relied on one when purchasing the stepstool. She also testified that she had not discussed the stepstool with a Home Depot employee before buying it.

Disposition

The motion to preclude Dr. Marletta’s testimony was granted in part and denied in part. The motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The manufacturing-defect and implied-warranty claims could proceed, while the design-defect, failure-to-warn, and express-warranty claims could not. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.