Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Defendant manufacturer of lye drain cleaner sought summary judgment in a defective design case. The court reversed, holding defendant failed to meet its initial burden of showing the product’s utility outweighed its inherent danger.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a defective design claim must affirmatively demonstrate the product’s reasonable safety (utility outweighs risk), not merely assert its inherent danger or plaintiff’s misuse.
Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Yun Tung Chow suffered severe burns and lost sight in one eye after using Lewis Red Devil Lye (RDL), a 100% sodium hydroxide drain cleaner, in a restaurant kitchen. RDL, marketed to laypersons, was sold as dry crystals. Plaintiff, who could not read English, did not follow the product’s instructions or warnings, having learned its use by observing others. On the day of the incident, he mixed approximately three spoonfuls of RDL with three cups of cold water in an aluminum container (contrary to warnings against aluminum contact) and poured the solution into a clogged floor drain. The solution immediately splashed back, causing his injuries. The product label warned of splash back, advised using protective eyewear and rubber gloves, and instructed users to spoon one tablespoon directly into the drain, wait 30 minutes, then flush with cold water. Defendants, responsible for RDL’s manufacture, distribution, and packaging, moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s defective design claim, arguing the product was inherently dangerous and its dangers were well known. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed regarding the defective design claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendants, in moving for summary judgment on a defective design claim, satisfy their initial burden by merely asserting that their lye-based product is inherently dangerous and its dangers are well known, without affirmatively demonstrating that the product’s utility outweighs its inherent danger?
No. The defendants failed to meet their initial burden for summary judgment. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the defendants, in moving for summary judgment on a defective design claim, satisfy their initial burden by merely asserting that their lye-based product is inherently dangerous and its dangers are well known, without affirmatively demonstrating that the product’s utility outweighs its inherent danger?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the defendant's substantial initial burden on summary judgment in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
Legal Rule
A defectively designed product is one which, at the time it leaves Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut l
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals, applying the risk-utility balancing test articulated in *Voss* Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant in a design defect case moving for summary judgment