A New York appellate court has ordered a new trial in the case of Janof v. Auto Warehouse, which involves personal injury claims against BMW of North America, LLC. The decision, issued on October 22, 2026, stems from a jury verdict that found the vehicle's airbag design defective but did not hold BMW negligent in its design choice. This ruling affects Richard Janof, the plaintiff, who suffered severe injuries, including the loss of an eye, in a car accident.
Janof's case revolves around claims of strict products liability, negligent design, and breach of implied warranty against BMW. The court's decision highlights the complexities of product liability law, particularly regarding jury instructions and the consistency of verdicts. The case will now return to the Supreme Court for a new trial, where the jury will reconsider the evidence and the claims against BMW.
Background
Richard Janof filed a lawsuit against BMW of North America and its parent company, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, after a serious accident in which the 2008 MINI Cooper Clubman S he was driving veered off the road and struck a utility pole. Janof claimed that the vehicle's untethered driver-side airbag design was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, leading to his injuries. The complaint included allegations of strict products liability, negligent design, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
The case was brought to trial after extensive pretrial motions and discovery. During the trial, Janof presented expert testimony arguing that the airbag's design was flawed because it utilized a deflector instead of a tether. This design choice allegedly increased the risk of injury during an accident. The jury ultimately found in favor of Janof on the strict products liability and breach of implied warranty claims but ruled against him on the negligent design claim.
The Ruling
The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the case and issued a ruling that reversed the lower court's judgment. The court found that the jury's verdict was inconsistent, noting that while the jury determined the airbag was defectively designed, they also concluded that BMW was not negligent in its design choice. The court stated, “the separate interrogatories unnecessarily divided what was in essence a single design inquiry and permitted the jury to reach divergent findings without a discernible factual basis for doing so.”
The court emphasized that the standards for strict products liability and negligent design overlap significantly, and the jury's findings should reflect that. As a result, the court ordered a new trial, stating that the verdict sheet should be structured to avoid potential inconsistencies in the future. The ruling also highlighted the need for a proper foundation for admitting evidence of similar incidents in the retrial.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for product liability cases, particularly those involving complex engineering and design issues. The court's decision to order a new trial underscores the importance of clear jury instructions and the need for consistency in verdicts. It also sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the overlap between different legal theories in product liability claims.
Janof's case could serve as a critical example for other plaintiffs pursuing claims against manufacturers for defective products. The outcome of the new trial may influence how manufacturers approach product safety and design, particularly in the automotive industry, where safety features like airbags are crucial.
What's Next
The case will return to the Supreme Court for a new trial, where the jury will reevaluate the evidence presented. There may also be discussions regarding the potential for an appeal following the new trial, depending on the outcome. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.