Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

July 1, 2016

Court Of Appeals Significantly Expands Manufacturer's Duty To Warn

In Dummit v. Crane Co., the Court of Appeals held yesterday that the manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn of the danger arising from the foreseeable use of its product in combination with a third-party product that is necessary to enable the manufacturer's product to function. In so holding, the Court does not depart from its prior holding in Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Co., but extends liability on behalf of the manufacturer based on foreseeability that the manufacturer's product be used with the other product out of necessity.

In Dummit, plaintiff's decedent was a Navy boiler technician who worked on non-asbestos Crane valves that contained asbestos-backed gaskets, packing and installation. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton, the companion case to Dummit, involved a decedent pipefitter for General Motors who worked with Crane valves in GM's Tonawanda plant. In both cases, the asbestos containing packing materials and gaskets surrounding the valves were not manufactured by Crane.

According to the longstanding precedent in Rastelli, a manufacturer may be held liable for harm caused by a third-party's product used in conjunction with the manufacturer's product when the manufacturer (1) controlled the production of the defective product, (2) derived some benefit from the sale of the defective product, or (3) placed the defective product in the stream of commerce. Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992).

Although the Court's decision in Dummit shifts the focus from a stream of commerce theory to one of foreseeability based on the necessity of use of the defective product, it does not abandon the Rastelli factors altogether. While noting that Crane did not control the production of the asbestos containing gaskets and packing, the Court still found other Rastelli factors supporting Crane's duty to warn the plaintiffs. Crane derived a benefit from the sale of the third-party's products since the products were essential to its valves working properly. Furthermore, the Court noted "where a manufacturer creates a product that cannot be used without another product . . . . the manufacturer has a substantial, albeit indirect role, in placing the third-party product into the stream of commerce." As such, the Court determined that Rastelli and its progeny support the imposition of a duty on behalf of a manufacturer that is on notice that its product may be used with a defective product out of necessity.

The Court further noted that another relevant consideration is the manufacturer's superior position to know of and warn against the hazards associated with the combined products. The manufacturer of a durable product designed for continuous use, such as a valve, is in a better position to know and warn of the defective nature of the combined products than the manufacturer of the "fungible" product that deteriorates quickly. Because the user is more likely to interact with the durable product, he or she is more likely to observe warnings on that product. As a result, Crane was held to be in a better position to learn and therefore warn of the defective condition of the third-party's packing material and gaskets.

With this decision, the Court further extends a manufacturer's duty to warn to include products that are necessary to allow the manufacturer's product to work as intended.

If you require further information regarding the content of this Legal Alert, please contact either of the Co-Chairs of the Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area, Thomas J. Drury, at (716) 858-3845 or, or Matthew J. Larkin, at (315) 425-2805 or, or the Chair of the Mass & Toxic Torts Practice Area, Carol G. Snider, at (716) 858-3782 or

Featured Media


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked


Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Claim Based on Material Misrepresentations in Insurance Application


It's Not Over Yet. Turning Your Judgments Into Dollars.


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Danso, Martinez, Hedges, Thorne, Genwright, and Donet—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out