Cedeno v. Broan-Nutone, LLC

LUIS CEDENO and JUDITH CEDENO, Plaintiffs, v. BROAN-NUTONE, LLC, Defendant.

16 CV 796 (RML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 30, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEVY, United States Magistrate Judge:

This diversity products liability action is before me on the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). It arises out of an injury sustained by plaintiff Luis Cedeno ("Mr. Cedeno") as he was installing a range hood designed and manufactured by defendant Broan-Nutone, LLC ("defendant") in his daughter's home. Mr. Cedeno alleges that the range hood dropped on him during installation and that the metal fan scrolling inside of the unit cut and nearly severed his right hand. (See Complaint, dated Jan. 12, 2016 ("Compl."), Dkt. No. 1-2.) He asserts causes of action for negligence and strict liability for design and manufacturing defects, as well as for failure to warn. (Id. ¶¶ 31-46.) He also claims breach of implied and express warranties. (Id.) His wife, plaintiff Judith Cedeno ("Ms. Cedeno"), brings a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium. (Id. ¶¶ 47-50.)

Mr. and Ms. Cedeno ("plaintiffs") commenced this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, on January 12, 2016. (See id.) The action was removed to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), on February 16, 2016. (See Notice of Removal, dated Feb. 16, 2016, Dkt. No. 1.) I held a bench trial on March 5, 6, and 7, 2019, at which seven witnesses testified: Mr. and Ms. Cedeno; Dr. James Pugh ("Dr. Pugh"), an engineer specializing in biomechanics and injury; Drs. Nader Paksima and Martin Wolpin ("Dr. Paksima" and "Dr. Wolpin," respectively), both orthopedic surgeons; Eliot Duncan ("Mr. Duncan"), defendant's Vice President for Product Safety; and Dr. Bruce Pinkston ("Dr. Pinkston"), a mechanical engineer specializing in machine design. (See Trial Transcript, dated Mar. 5-7, 2019 ("Tr."), Dkt. No. 44-1.) Based on the evidence presented at trial, the parties' post-trial submissions, and the applicable law, I now issue my findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).¹ For the reasons stated below, I find in favor of Mr. Cedeno on the design defect claim in the amount of $900,000 and Ms. Cedeno on the loss of consortium claim in the amount of $30,000. After reducing the awards by thirty percent to account for comparative fault, I award $630,000 to Mr. Cedeno and $21,000 to Ms. Cedeno, for a total of $651,000.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Stipulated Facts

The parties stipulated to the following facts in their Amended Joint Pretrial Order. (See Amended Joint Pretrial Order, dated Dec. 11, 2018 ("Am. JTPO"), Dkt. No. 26, at 3-4.) The accident that is the subject of this litigation occurred on July 26, 2015 at the home of plaintiffs' daughter in Brooklyn, New York. (Id. at 3.) The product at issue is a vented range hood (the "subject range hood" or the "unit"), designed and manufactured by defendant. (Id.) Its model number is CJD330 and its serial number is 031520013124. (Id.) As manufactured andsold, it weighs approximately twenty pounds and is thirty inches long on its longest side. (Id.) Plaintiffs purchased it at retail from Lowes.² (Id.)

A range hood is a kitchen appliance, typically installed above a cooking range. (Id.) The purpose of a range hood is to facilitate ventilation during cooking. (Id.) The subject range hood contains a fan, which exhausts fumes and smoke to the outside. (Id.) As designed and manufactured, the subject range hood contains a cover, which prevents internal components from coming into contact with a user when the unit is in place. (Id.) The subject range hood was sold with an instruction manual, which states that installation "must be done by a qualified person(s)." (Id.; see also Instruction Manual, Trial Ex. 6, at Bates Stamp 042.) Mr. Cedeno read the instructions prior to attempting to install the unit and found them to be "totally clear." (Am. JTPO at 3.)

On the day of the accident, Mr. Cedeno was installing the subject range hood in his daughter's kitchen. (Id.) The home was being renovated at the time, and Mr. Cedeno and his brother-in-law, Nelson Santiago ("Mr. Santiago"), were installing the appliances. (Id.) Plaintiffs hired a general contractor to perform certain other tasks. (Id.) Prior to the accident, Mr. Cedeno had positioned the unit on a set of screws above the stove area, where it was intended to be mounted. (Id. at 4.) He had no difficulty lifting it into place. (Id.) He then removed and was carrying it, without the cover in place, when he lost his footing and fell. (Id.) As he fell, the unit slipped from his grip and fell onto him. (See id.) He does not know what precisely caused him to lose his footing. (Id.)

2. The Subject & Exemplar Range Hoods

According to Mr. Duncan's testimony, most range hoods use either an axial or a centrifugal fan³ to draw in and release air. (Tr. at 238:13-22.) Dr. Pugh explained that a centrifugal fan draws air in sideways, like a waterwheel, whereas an axial fan draws air in directly, like an airplane propeller. (Id. at 120:14-23.) The fan scrolling is a piece of metal that surrounds the fan and directs the flow of air. (Id. at 243:10-13.) Dr. Pugh testified that the flow of air into a centrifugal fan is less contained than in an axial fan; therefore a centrifugal fan may require more fan scrolling and metalwork. (Id. at 121:2-5.) Some axial fans may not utilize fan scrolling at all. (See id. at 252:21-23.) Mr. Duncan testified that in any centrifugal fan, the shape of the fan scrolling is very important to overall functionality. (Id. at 243:10-244:2.)

a. The Subject Range Hood

The subject range hood is a part of defendant's Allure line and was designed primarily for sale at Lowes. (Id. at 241:5-12.) It contains a centrifugal fan, surrounded by galvanized steel fan scrolling. (Id. at 244:3-245:1; see also Subject Range Hood, Trial Ex. 1.) As discussed above, it was manufactured and sold with a cover, which prevents internal components from coming into contact with a user when the unit is in place. (Am. JTPO at 3.) According to the instruction manual, the cover must be removed for installation.⁴ (See Instruction Manual, Trial Ex. 6, at Bates Stamp 044.) Both Mr. Cedeno and Dr. Pugh testifiedthat the keyholes through the which the unit attaches to a wall or cabinet are located on the inside of the unit and cannot be accessed with the cover in place. (See Tr. at 43:13-19, 129:2-8.)

Dr. Pugh testified that the edge of the fan scrolling is sharp enough to slice a sheet of copy paper, and that this capability indicates a sharpness level of approximately 350.⁵ (Id. at 108:11-109:2.) He further testified that a sharpness level of 350 is "equivalent to . . . the sharpness of a household knife that has not been prepared, has not been honed, has not been tended to regularly, but which is usable in the kitchen . . . to cut meat, to cut vegetables." (Id. at 109:4-7.) Dr. Paksima, plaintiffs' medical expert, testified that the nature of Mr. Cedeno's injury, which he described as "a sharp laceration" with little collateral tissue damage, spoke to the sharpness of the object that caused it. (Id. at 219:1-16.) Dr. Pinkston, defendant's mechanical engineering expert, admitted that the object that caused plaintiff's injury had to have been sharp. (Id. at 341:2-4.)

It was Dr. Pugh's opinion that the sharpness of the fan scrolling posed a danger to a user installing the subject range hood because the edges are unprotected and because one would not ordinarily expect there to be sharp edges on the inside of the unit. (Id. at 112:11-25.) He further testified that the sharp edges could have been covered, rolled, flattened, or folded without any noticeable effect on the machine's functionality. (Id. at 113:2-114:7, 126:4-127:4.) Dr. Pinkston agreed that each of Dr. Pugh's proposed safety measures was feasible, though potentially costlier. (See id. at 335:3-10, 341:5-18.) The subject range hood and cover, both introduced into evidence at trial as Exhibit 1, are pictured separately below:

Image materials not available for display.

Exhibit 1: The Subject Range Hood

Image materials not available for display.

The Cover

b. The Exemplar Range Hoods

In addition to the subject range hood, plaintiffs introduced into evidence two exemplar range hoods, the Nutone⁶ and the Zephyr, both of which contain axial fans encasedwithin a metal or plastic covering. (Id. at 119:21-120:14, 123:3-6.) The Nutone, which was designed and manufactured by defendant (id. at 119:22-25), does not contain scrolling at all (id. at 252:21-23). Rather, it uses a galvanized steel "air box" to direct the flow of air. (Id. at 252:23-253:1.) The internal components are housed within the air box, so that they are not exposed to the user. (See Nutone Range Hood, Trial Ex. 2.) The Zephyr similarly employs plastic cowling to encase its fan and internal components. (See Tr. at 123:3-6, 254:20-21; see also Zephyr Range Hood, Trial Ex. 3.) The Nutone and the Zephyr, introduced into evidence at trial as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively, are pictured below:

Image materials not available for display.

Exhibit 2: The Nutone

Image materials not available for display.

Exhibit 3: The Zephyr

Mr. Duncan testified that two important considerations in designing a range hood are efficiency and sound, the goal being to move as much air possible with as little noise as possible. (See id. at 239:3-16.) Dr. Pugh testified that a range hood with an axial fan can be designed to be even quieter than one with a centrifugal fan, while maintaining the same level of efficiency. (Id. at 121:19-122:17.) He further testified that the materials and processes necessary to produce both exemplars were available at the time that the subject range hood was designed and manufactured. (Id. at 121:7-10, 123:7-10.) While Mr. Duncan testified that the Nutone is louder than the subject range hood. (id. ...