Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—N.Y. App. Div.: BMW granted new trial in driver’s injury case due to conflicting jury verdicts, (Oct 27, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A jury’s separate verdicts favoring both the driver and the manufacturer on strict liability and negligent design, respectively, were irreconcilable as both claims rested on the same design and evidence.

In an action brought against an automaker by a driver who sustained injuries following a crash due to alleged defects in his vehicle’s airbags, a New York appellate court upheld the evidentiary basis for the jury’s finding that the car’s driver-side airbag was defectively designed and breached the implied warranty of merchantability. The judgment, however, was reversed and remitted for a new trial because the jury separately found that the same design was not negligent, despite the absence of a distinct factual basis for that finding (Janof v. Auto Warehouse, No. CV-25-0985 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 22, 2026)).

Background. A man was injured when a 2008 MINI Cooper Clubman S veered off the road and struck a utility pole. He alleged that the vehicle’s driver-side airbag was defectively designed because it used a deflector rather than a tether to control inflation. According to his expert, a tethered airbag would have reduced the inflation distance, provided a more stable surface for driver contact, and lowered the risk of an eye injury. In contrast, the deflector design allowed the airbag to travel approximately six inches farther during inflation and was uncommon in the industry. The driver brought claims for strict products liability, negligent design, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The jury found for the driver on strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, but for BMW on negligent design. BMW moved to set aside the verdict as inconsistent or obtain a new trial. The trial court denied the motions and entered judgment. BMW appealed, and the driver cross-appealed.

Design defect verdict. BMW argued that the findings on strict products liability and implied warranty lacked legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. A verdict may be set aside for legal insufficiency only where no valid reasoning or permissible inference could support it, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978], and it is against the weight of the evidence only where the evidence so favors the unsuccessful party that the verdict cannot stand on any fair interpretation of the record. Alaimo v General Motors Corp., 32 AD3d 627, 627-628 [3d Dept 2006]. The driver’s expert testified that a tethered airbag would reduce inflation distance and provide a more stable contact surface, reducing the likelihood of the type of eye injury sustained. He added that the deflector’s design was unreasonably unsafe for ordinary use. Although BMW presented competing expert evidence about the restraint system’s development, testing, and performance, resolving conflicts between experts was the jury’s task. Abar v. Freightliner Corp., 208 AD2d 999, 1001 (3d Dept 1994). The court therefore found no basis to disturb the verdict on these grounds.

Similar incidents. The court addressed an evidentiary issue for retrial and clarified that evidence of prior accidents may be admitted to show a dangerous condition, causation, or notice, but only if the incidents occurred under circumstances substantially similar to the accident at issue. Hyde v. County of Rensselaer, 51 N.Y.2d 927, 929 (1980). For incidents identified through the National Automotive Sampling System, the required foundation must establish that the incidents involved substantially similar airbag systems and the injuries resulted from the same alleged defect. An expert’s reliance on otherwise inadmissible hearsay also requires proof that the material is the type commonly relied upon by professionals in the field. Delosh v. Amyot, 186 A.D.3d 1793, 1796 (3d Dep’t 2020).

Legal standard. Under CPLR 4111(c), inconsistent answers require further jury consideration or a new trial. Inconsistency arises when a verdict on one claim necessarily negates an element of another. New York law applies the same design standards to both strict products liability and negligent design theories. Adams v. Genie Industries, Inc., 14 N.Y.3d 535, 543 (2010). Separate questions asking whether a design was “negligent” and “not reasonably safe” can therefore be redundant. Reis v. Volvo Cars of North America, 24 N.Y.3d 35, 40 (2014). Implied warranty overlaps substantially with strict products liability, although the defect inquiry differs: strict liability focuses on the balance between a product’s risks and utility, while implied warranty focuses on whether the product performs as reasonably expected when used in customary and foreseeable ways. Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248, 256, 258-259 (1995).

Verdict findings. The court agreed with BMW that the verdict sheet improperly separated the design claims. Both the strict-liability and negligent-design claims rested on the same alleged defect: BMW’s choice of an untethered, deflector-equipped airbag instead of a tethered design. The same evidence addressed the design’s risks, utility, and the feasibility of an alternative. BMW objected to separate interrogatories at trial and proposed a single question asking whether the airbag was “defectively or negligently designed.” The driver opposed that proposal and expressly accepted the risk of an inconsistent verdict. The jury ultimately found that the airbag was not reasonably safe but that BMW was not negligent in selecting that same design. The driver identified no separate negligent conduct beyond BMW’s design choice. Nor did the evidence provide a factual basis to reconcile the findings on design defect, negligence, and implied warranty. By dividing one substantive design inquiry into separate interrogatories, the verdict sheet allowed divergent findings without evidentiary support. The court reversed the judgment on the law and remitted the matter to the trial court for a new trial, instructing the lower court to use a verdict sheet structured to prevent this problem.

The case is No. CV-25-0985.

Judge: Ryba, C.

Attorneys: Austin T. Osborn (McCartney Stucky LLC) for Richard Janof. Peter M. Durney (Smith Duggan Cornell & Gollub LLP) for BMW of North America, LLC.

Companies: Auto Warehouse; BMW of North America, LLC

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews MotorEquipmentNews EvidentiaryNews ExpertEvidenceNews NewYorkNews