About a month ago, New York’s highest court issued a decision in Fasolas v. Bobcat of N.Y., 2019 N.Y. LEXIS 1357 (N.Y. Ct. App. May 9, 2019), an important products liability ruling regarding products made, sold or rented with certain safety equipment provided as “optional” items. In other words, the purchaser gets to decide whether the optional safety feature should be included when the product is purchased and used.

Practical realities dictate that. Some multiple-use products simply cannot have every possible design option rigidly provided as standard equipment. A feature helpful for one product use may be a hindrance, danger or disadvantage when another form of use is contemplated. So the particular utility of a multi-use product then becomes the decision of the savvy purchaser. Cost considerations are a factor too. Thus, choosing only safety option A, which the purchaser actually needs or wants, likely will be less expensive than having to purchase a product that has, not only option A, but also options B and C included as standard, which the buyer does not need.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]