[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
Supreme Court of New York, Allegany County
133 Misc. 2d 50; 506 N.Y.S.2d 523; 1986 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2964
August 29, 1986
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant certifier moved for summary judgment on plaintiff injured party’s claims of negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence that were brought against defendant after plaintiff was paralyzed while diving into a swimming pool. In bringing the claims, plaintiff alleged that defendant had issued statements misrepresenting the pool’s safety.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff injured party was paralyzed after diving into a swimming pool. Thereafter, plaintiff brought claims of negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence against defendant certifier, claiming defendant had allegedly issued statements misrepresenting the pool’s safety. In response, defendant moved for summary judgment. In granting the motion, the court held defendant could not be liable for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiff had not relied upon information supplied by defendant and plaintiff, as a member of the general public, was not in a class of persons who could be anticipated to rely upon the alleged misrepresentations. The court also held defendant could not be liable for strict products liability or breach of warranty because defendant had not been involved in the pool’s manufacture or distribution. Furthermore, the court held that strict products liability was designed to spread the risk to manufacturers and that it had not been extended to certifiers of manufactured goods. Finally, the court rejected the negligence claim because defendant had lacked a duty to control the manufacturers who had produced the pool.
OUTCOME: Court granted defendant certifier summary judgment in an action brought after a swimming pool injury because plaintiff injured party had neither relied upon defendant’s alleged misrepresentations nor been a member of a class anticipated to rely on the alleged misrepresentations and defendant, who neither manufactured the pool nor controlled its manufacturers, could not be liable for strict products liability, breach of warranty, or negligence.