The Appellate Division dismissed the claim because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's prima facie showing that the van was not negligently designed. Where a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis and decide whether the product was reasonably safe. However, an expert cannot raise an issue of fact to avoid summary judgment when the opinion consists of bare conclusory allegations of alleged defects or industry-wide knowledge. Here, plaintiffs' expert's assertions were unsupported by any data concerning the testing he purportedly performed, and which he described in conclusory terms and general statements. Plaintiffs pointed to reports concerning the alleged propensity of 15-passenger vans to roll over, but such reports are hearsay In addition, the tests performed in connection with those reports were computerized models of a generic passenger van, results rebutted by defendant in an on-track study showing that its van did not behave as the generic computerized model did.
Richards v. Ford Motor Co., NY Slip Op 05469 (1st Dep't October 12, 2021)
