Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—E.D.N.Y.: Dog leash amputation case will proceed to trial on defect, failure to warn claims, (Oct 2, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

The court declined to preclude plaintiff’s expert testimony and granted summary judgment only on warranty claims.

The federal district court for the Eastern District of New York denied Petco and a leash seller’s motion to preclude expert testimony and granted in part and denied in part their motion for summary judgment. The products liability case was by a woman whose fingers were severed when her dog’s leash wrapped around her fingers. Her second amended complaint alleged design defect, negligent design, failure to warn, and breach of express and implied warranties. Although the dog owner’s expert’s report was flawed, the court deemed it reliable and relevant enough to be admissible. The dog owner introduced enough evidence that the leash was defective even when used correctly to survive summary judgment. Her allegations were not specific enough to plead express or implied warranty claims (Dannenfelser v. Flexi N.A., 22-CV-6608 (SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff dog owner purchased a retractable cord leash in February 2021. The leash was “rated” for dogs 44 pounds and under. The parties disputed the relevant dog’s weight; the owner said he was 45 pounds, but defendants claimed he was approximately 70 pounds. In April 2022, the owner lost the tips of two fingers when her dog “lunged forward and across [her] body.” She stated she had not been touching the cord when the dog “startled.”

The dog owner brought this case in October 2022 against the leash’s manufacturer, the company that sold and distributed the leash, and Petco, where she purchased the leash. In December 2024, she filed a second amended complaint, raising design defect, negligent design, failure to warn, and breach of express and implied warranties. The court dismissed her claims against the leash manufacturer, leaving only Petco and the seller as the only defendants.

Expert report and testimony. Petco and the leash seller argued the dog owner’s expert’s report “not valid as a reliable means of evaluating amputation risk.” The dog owner’s expert was a licensed professional engineer, specializing in mechanical engineering. He opined, with “a reasonable degree of engineering certainty,” the subject leash was “defectively designed and unreasonably hazardous” because its cord “created a serious laceration and amputation risk.” He came to this conclusion by conducting a “drop-weight” test. He attached 44- and 70- pound weights to cord leashes and dropped them to “approximate a dog’s sudden pull” and see whether the leash penetrated model fingers. The leash lacerated them at 44 pounds.

Defendants challenged the materials the expert used in his tests as invalid because they were developed for litigation and not subject to independent review. They focused on the model fingers, which were made of brass wrapped in pig skin. Their expert called brass not “an accepted bone surrogate,” suggesting cadavers or sawbones should have been used to simulate fingers’ “breaking behavior.”

The court found the dog owner’s expert’s testimony was “sufficiently relevant and reliable to submit at trial.” The court acknowledged the shortcomings in his report, but determined this went to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. It cited a Second Circuit holding “minor flaws do not render an otherwise reliable opinion inadmissible.” The court was not persuaded using brass as a bone surrogate made the engineer’s testimony unreliable because his report “identifie[d] rods…as hav[ing] similar strength properties.”

Design defect and negligent design. The dog owner introduced enough evidence a reasonable jury could find the subject leash was defective. New York uses a “risk utility” balancing test for design defect claims. A plaintiff must show (1) the product posed a substantial likelihood harm, (2) there was a feasible alternative design, and (3) the defective design was a substantial factor in causing her injury. The court emphasized a distributor may be liable for a design defect in a product it did not design.

Here, the dog owner’s expert’s report satisfied the three prongs of a design defect claim. As described above, he showed the leash’s high risk of skin penetration at 44 pounds. He determined a thicker “tape-style” leash was a safer and economically feasible alternative and would have “more likely than not, prevented [the dog owner’s injuries.” In the “drop-weight” test, the tape leash did not penetrate the model fingers even at 70 pounds. The distributor already offers a tape leash, and its Vice President of Operations admitted “the tape version is stronger than the cord version…tends to tangle less, and is less likely to cause injury if it becomes wrapped around a user’s finger or limb.”

The distributor responded the dog’s weight was a substantial factor in causing the owner’s injury. However, as stated above, the engineer found the leash would have penetrated the owner’s skin if the dog had been 44 pounds, the maximum weight for which it was marketed. The court ruled the dog’s weight was an issue for trial and rejected the defendant’s move to deny the owner’s design defect claim.

Failure to warn. The dog owner complied with the leash’s warnings, and the adequacy of the warning is a question for the jury. Petco and the leash distributor contend the dog owner knew she should not have wrapped the cord around her fingers because of included product warnings. The leash came with a pamphlet that warned users not to touch the cord because of the risk of severe finger injuries. The leash’s handle also had a “Amputation/Cutting/Burning Hazard” label. The dog owner acknowledged she knew the leash should only be held by the handle. At the time of her injury, she testified, she was holding the leash by the handle in her right hand, and when her dog startled, the cord wrapped around her left hand. The court was persuaded the evidence was enough to suggest the dog owner was complying with the leash’s warning at the time of her accident. The issue then was not whether the leash’s labels failed to warn users, but whether the warnings were enough. In New York, “the adequacy of a warning and whether an inadequate warning was a substantial factor in causing injury are questions of fact” which cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

Breach of warranty. The dog owner could not plead breach of express warranty because she did not identify a specific statement from either defendant which she relied on in choosing the subject leash. She testified she did not realize which leash she was buying when she selected it from Petco. The dog owner had no evidence to state a claim under the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Nothing on the record suggested the leash was “unfit for…restraining and walking a dog” or the owner needed the defendants’ specialized skill or judgment to select a leash.

The case is No. 22-CV-6608(SIL).

Judge: Locke, S.

Attorneys: Joseph Donnelly, IV (Meirowitz & Wasserberg, LLP) for Diana Dannenfelser. Christopher R. Carton (Bowman And Brooke) for Flexi North America, LLC.

Companies: Flexi North America, LLC; Petco

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews HouseholdProductsNews WarningsNews NewYorkNews