Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc.

John Ramos (plaintiff) was employed by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara). Ramos was injured when a transformer manufactured by Howard Industries, Inc. (Howard) (defendant) allegedly exploded. Ramos, who did not immediately report the incident, initially stated that he was injured when he reached out of an aerial bucket while installing the transformer, but approximately two years later, Ramos claimed that the transformer had exploded. The transformer no longer was available for testing by the time Ramos made his explosion claim. Ramos sued Howard on a products-liability theory, alleging that the transformer was defectively designed and manufactured. Howard moved for summary judgment. In support of its motion, Howard submitted an affidavit from its expert witness, who concluded that any defect with the transformer would have been detected and fixed during the manufacturing process, making it impossible for a defective transformer to have left Howard’s plant. Howard’s expert further opined that the transformer might have exploded due to the postshipment activities of Niagara’s employees. Howard also submitted evidence that (1) the transformer was manufactured at a state-of-the-art facility according to Niagara’s specifications, (2) Howard’s manufacturing process met industry standards, and (3) each transformer was individually tested before shipment. Ramos responded with his own expert affidavit, in which Ramos’s expert identified alleged defects in the transformer’s design and opined that two transformer-safety devices failed to operate. However, Ramos (either via an expert or otherwise) did not refute Howard’s showing that any transformer malfunction could have been caused by Niagara’s acts or omissions. The supreme court denied Howard’s summary-judgment motion. The appellate division affirmed, ruling that Howard failed to show that, as a matter of law, a manufacturing defect did not cause Ramos’s injuries. Howard appealed.