From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bouloy v. Westinghouse Air Brake Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1999
259 A.D.2d 292 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 4, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


The parties plaintiff seeks to add under the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203 are not united in interest with any of the named defendants. As for plaintiff's product liability claims, we agree with the IAS Court that the manufacturer could not have foreseen an attempt to lift this 250-pound air compressor out of the back of a moving truck by using chains attached to a block and tackle while half of the unit was balanced on a jack and tire rim, and that such activity, the obvious danger of which plaintiff admitted he was aware, superseded any causal relationship between plaintiff's injury and the unshielded nip point between the compressor's belt and pulley ( see, Rosemond v. Harshaw Chem. Co., 135 A.D.2d 525). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Bouloy v. Westinghouse Air Brake Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1999
259 A.D.2d 292 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Bouloy v. Westinghouse Air Brake Company

Case Details

Full title:HARDIE BOULOY et al., Appellants, v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE COMPANY et…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 292 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 45

Citing Cases

Small v. Keneston

This opinion was supported by the undisputed fact that the cargo area of the truck was not equipped with…