From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andujar v. Sears Roebuck Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1993
193 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 6, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.).


Plaintiff brought suit alleging that he sustained injury while using a table saw as a result of both defective design and inadequate warning. Inasmuch as Sears held itself out as the manufacturer of the saw, it is held to the same level of care as would any other manufacturer of a product for sale to the public (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v City Chem. Corp., 290 N.Y. 64, 69; see, Restatement [Second] of Torts § 400). Accordingly, Sears had a duty to test for design defects. Thus, the court's charge that Sears, as a retailer, had that duty, was fully in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Andujar v. Sears Roebuck Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1993
193 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Andujar v. Sears Roebuck Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARK A. ANDUJAR, Respondent, v. SEARS ROEBUCK CO. et al., Appellants and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 6, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
597 N.Y.S.2d 78

Citing Cases

Weigl v. Quincy Specialties Co.

he weight of the evidence (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493; Revill v. Boston Post Road Dev. Corp.,…

Reiss v. Komatsu America Corp.

A majority of the jurisdictions that have considered the issue have adopted the apparent manufacturer…