From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buley v. Rexnord Process Machinery Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 15, 1984
105 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 15, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ulster County (Torraca, J.).


On June 13, 1979, plaintiff Bruce W. Buley sustained physical injuries while working with a crushing machine at a limestone quarry in Cementon, Greene County. The instant action was commenced against (1) Rexnord Process Machinery Division (Rexnord), the manufacturer of the crushing machine; (2) John Bendick Construction Corporation, Inc., the installer of the machine; and (3) Constructors Equipment Corporation (Constructors), the seller of the machine. In due course, defendant Rexnord commenced a third-party action against plaintiff Buley's employer, Alpha Portland Cement Company (Alpha Portland). Thereafter, Constructors moved for summary judgment and, without written decision, Special Term granted this motion, dismissing all causes of action stated against Constructors. This appeal by third-party defendant Alpha Portland ensued.

There must be a reversal. It is undisputed that Constructors sold the crushing machine in question to Alpha Portland. This being the case, we find that questions of fact exist on this rather undeveloped record with respect to Constructors' duty to warn (see Young v Elmira Tr. Mix, 52 A.D.2d 202, 205; 1 Weinberger, New York Products Liability, §§ 5:04, 7:02, 15:02, 18:01-18:06). Constructors argues that, as a matter of law, it owed no duty to warn since the crushing machine was sent directly from the manufacturer to the purchaser. While this may be true in some cases (see Pimm v Graybar Elec. Co., 27 A.D.2d 309), the question of what, if any, warning is reasonable under the circumstances is usually a question of fact for the jury (see Lancaster Silo Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 A.D.2d 55; Rainbow v Elia Bldg. Co., 49 A.D.2d 250, 253; Chandler v Northwest Eng. Co., 111 Misc.2d 433, 436-439; 1 Weinberger, New York Products Liability, §§ 18:06, 18:17). Upon the instant record, we conclude that questions of fact exist with respect to this issue. The order should, therefore, be reversed and Constructors' motion for summary judgment denied.

William Croll, the parts and service manager for Constructors in his affidavit submitted in support of the summary judgment motion, states that his employer sold the subject machine to Alpha Portland.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Buley v. Rexnord Process Machinery Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 15, 1984
105 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Buley v. Rexnord Process Machinery Division

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE W. BULEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. REXNORD PROCESS MACHINERY DIVISION…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Stone v. Sterling Drug, Inc.

With respect to the claim that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of failure to warn, thus…

Reed v. Niagara Machine Tool Works, Inc.

Moreover, it urges that it cannot, as a matter of law, be liable for a failure to warn since it was a mere…