A Manufacturer has a Continuing Duty To Warn Customers:

            The next time you throw out the product registration card for your snow thrower, table saw or child’s car seat – ask yourself this question: How will the manufacturer let me know if they discover a problem with this product?   The responsibility to warn the consumer does not end when a defectively design product leaves a manufacturer.  They are required to stay abreast of product design changes and let product users know if they learn of a danger – even after the sale.

            In Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261, 274-275, 473 N.Y.S.2d 378 (1984), the Court of Appeals held that: A manufacturer or retailer may, however, incur liability for failing to warn concerning dangers in the use of a product which come to his attention after manufacture or sale, through advancements in the state of the art, with which he is expected to stay abreast, or through being made aware of later accidents involving dangers in the product of which warnings should be given to users.  See also, Power v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 189 A.D.2d 310, 596 N.Y.S.2d 38, 39-40 (1^st Dept. 1993). 

            In Cover v. Cohen, the Court of Appeals reiterated the principal that evidence of post-manufacture design changes is admissible to establish that it was feasible for the defendant to have included the proposed design at the time the machine was originally manufactured and to demonstrate that the defendant failed to satisfy its continuing duty to warn.  61 N.Y.2d at 270, 473 N.Y.S.2d at 868.  In Liquori v. Hollymatic Corp., 230 A.D.2d 893, 894, 643 N.Y.S.2d 886, 887 (2d Dept. 1996), the Court held that evidence of post-manufacture design changes is admissible “.  .  . for the purposes of demonstrating the feasibility of alternative designs as of the time of manufacture, or in order to establish the manufacturer’s failure to satisfy its continuing duty to warn of a known risk.”  In Cramer v. Kuhns, 213 A.D.2d 131, 139, 630 N.Y.S.2d 128, 133 (3d Dept. 1995) the Court held that, “where a plaintiff is able to show that the manufacturer had knowledge of a defect prior to the accident, evidence of subsequent design changes is admissible” with respect to the continuing duty to warn.  See also, Haran v. Union Carbide Corporation, 68 N.Y.2d 710, 506 N.Y.S.2d 311 (1986).  

            As consumers, we can do two important things to help prevent future accidents and hold the manufacturer responsible for past accidents.  Report the specific details of the accident to the manufacturer and the US Consumer Products Safety Commission at www.cpsc.gov.