Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT—S.D.N.Y.: Leg press maker wins summary judgment in user’s head injury suit, (Sep 30, 2026)

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

The user failed to establish that the subject leg press was defectively designed or carried inadequate warnings after the exclusion of her expert evidence.

In an action brought against an equipment manufacturer by a woman who suffered a head injury when a leg press carriage fell on her as she remained seated post exercise, a federal district court in New York granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. The court excluded the user’s primary expert for failing to review critical evidence, not inspecting the subject machine, unreliably asserting a partial-latching defect theory, and failing to reliably evaluate his proposed alternative designs or warning. Without admissible expert evidence, the design-defect claim lacked evidence of a feasible safer design, while the warning claim lacked evidence of an adequate alternative warning which would have prevented the injury. The derivative loss-of-consortium claim also failed (Edwards v. Cybex International, Inc., No. 22-CV-2985 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2026)).

Background. Cybex International, Inc. manufactured a 45-degree inclined leg press machine in which users pushed a weighted carriage upward with their feet and engaged rear handles to secure the carriage support before lowering the weight plate. The machine carried four warning stickers, including one stating that serious injury could result if the carriage fell toward the user and instructing users to engage the carriage support after exercise. On February 4, 2019, a woman completed a set, manipulated the handles, and remained seated to stretch. More than a minute later, the carriage fell and struck her head. She contended that the carriage had entered a partially engaged state that gave her physical feedback indicating that it was locked, while the manufacturer maintained that the incident resulted from improper use because the carriage could not fall when fully engaged. The woman and her husband (together, claimants) filed suit against the manufacturer for alleged design and warning defects and loss of consortium. Both parties moved to exclude each other’s experts. Cybex also sought summary judgment.

Expert testimony. The court first considered the manufacturer’s challenge to the claimants’ primary expert. Although the expert was qualified through extensive engineering experience, work involving fitness equipment, and reconstruction of fitness-product incidents, his opinions were not based on sufficient facts or data. He had not reviewed the injured user’s deposition before preparing his initial and rebuttal reports and had not inspected the machine until after his report and deposition. In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 309 F. Supp. 2d 531, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). He also relied on no peer reviewed or other literature and based his proposed stop-bar alternative on an idea developed in his own mind, while his proposed horizontal leg press was a machine he had encountered in physical therapy.

The court also found the methodology unreliable. The expert did not explain how the alleged “partially latched” condition operated or how a user could feel the handles engage when they were not fully secured. References to generic “basic engineering” and “safety engineering principles” were insufficient, and his asserted “hierarchy of controls” methodology was not identified in his report or deposition. The conclusion that the machine had to be “fail-safe” conflicted with New York law, which asks whether a product is reasonably safe, not whether it incorporates every possible safety feature. Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 53, 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Although the court assumed that some of his proposed methods could be sound, he failed to apply them reliably.

The expert’s proposed alternatives also failed. The horizontal leg press was an entirely different product and therefore could not establish a feasible alternative design. The proposed permanent stop bar was merely mentioned, was not diagrammed or tested, and had not been evaluated for its effect on the machine’s utility. The expert also created his proposed warning “off the top of” his head and could not explain why it complied with applicable standards. His principal change was replacing “WARNING” with “DANGER,” even though the alleged hazard could occur rather than inevitably occur, and the injured user had testified that she had read the existing warning. The court therefore excluded the expert’s testimony in full.

Design defect. New York law requires proof that the product posed a substantial likelihood of harm, a feasible safer design existed, and the defective design substantially caused the injury. Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 450 N.E.2d 204, 208 (N.Y. 1983). After exclusion of the expert, the user had no admissible evidence establishing the feasibility or efficacy of an alternative design. Although lay testimony may establish an alternative design when it is obvious and understandable to ordinary users, the proposed stop bar involved technical questions concerning exercise-machine design, feasibility, costs, and effects. Summary judgment therefore was granted on the design-defect claim.

Warning defect. A warning claim requires a duty to warn against dangers from foreseeable uses known or reasonably knowable to the manufacturer, a failure to provide the warning, and proximate causation. Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 700 N.E.2d 303, 305–06 (N.Y. 1998). With the expert excluded, the record contained no evidence identifying a specific warning deficiency. The injured user’s deposition did not establish what additional warning was required or that it would have prevented the accident. The proposed warning was itself unsupported and, in any event, the claimants did not show that changing the signal word would have changed the outcome. Summary judgment was therefore granted on the warning claim.

Loss of consortium. Because the husband’s loss-of-consortium claim was derivative of the products-liability claims, its dismissal followed from the failure of the design and warning claims. The remaining expert motions were denied as moot, and judgment was entered for Cybex.

The case is No. 22-CV-2985 (KMK).

Judge: Karas, K.

Attorneys: Michael Stephen Mosscrop (Franklin, Gringer, Cohen & Mosscrop, P.C.) for Lynda Edwards and Richard Edwards. Michelle Gilboe (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) for Cybex International, Inc.

Companies: Cybex International, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews SportsandRecEquipmentNews WarningsNews ExpertEvidenceNews NewYorkNews