Summary
referring to negligence and strict liability manufacturing defect claims and citing to Caprara and Henry v. Gen'l Motors Corp., 609 N.Y.S.2d 711, 712 (App.Div. 1994), both of which refer to manufacturing defect claims in the absence of negligence
Summary of this case from Castaldi v. Land Rover North America, Inc.Opinion
CA 01-01829
February 1, 2002.
Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sedita, Jr., J.), entered February 9, 2001, that denied in part the motion of defendants for summary judgment.
HARTER, SECREST EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (RICHARD E. ALEXANDER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
LIPSITZ, GREEN, FAHRINGER, ROLL, SALISBURY CAMBRIA LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN A. COLLINS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, KEHOE, AND BURNS, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting defendants' motion in part and dismissing the complaint against defendant Makita Corporation of America and the negligence and strict products liability causes of action against defendant Makita U.S.A., Inc. based on a manufacturing defect and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Plaintiff commenced this action to injuries he sustained while operating a portable table saw manufactured by defendant Makita U.S.A., Inc. (Makita). Plaintiff, who had not operated a table saw before the day of the accident, was injured when a shingle that he was cutting stuck and then ejected from the unguarded saw blade, causing his hand to strike the blade. The table saw was intentionally designed with a removable blade guard to facilitate certain of its intended uses.
Supreme Court erred in denying that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Makita Corporation of America (MCA). Defendants established that MCA did not manufacture the subject table saw and plaintiff offered no evidence to refute that proof. The court further erred in denying that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence and strict products liability causes of action against Makita based on a manufacturing defect. Defendants established that the table saw had no manufacturing or assembly defect, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact ( see generally, Caprara v. Chrysler Corp., 52 N.Y.2d 114, 123-124; Henry v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Motor Div., 201 A.D.2d 949, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 803).
We conclude, however, that the court properly denied that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence and strict products liability causes of action against Makita based upon defective design. Here, unlike David v. Makita U.S.A. ( 233 A.D.2d 145) and Banks v. Makita, U.S.A. ( 226 A.D.2d 659, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 805), relied on by defendants, the affidavit of plaintiff's engineer raises issues of fact whether the table saw was not reasonably safe due to a design defect and whether there were feasible alternative designs at the time of manufacture ( see, Eiss v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 275 A.D.2d 919, 919-920; Smith v. Minster Mach. Co., 233 A.D.2d 892, 893; see also, Sanchez v. Otto Martin Maschinenbau GmbH Co., 281 A.D.2d 284, 285; see generally, Lopez v. Precision Papers, 67 N.Y.2d 871, 873).
We further conclude that the court properly denied defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence and strict products liability causes of action against Makita based upon the failure to warn. The record establishes that plaintiff had no experience operating a table saw before the day of the accident and that the table saw was designed to be operated at times without the blade guard. Thus, on the record before us, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether the risk to plaintiff from operating the table saw in an unguarded condition was so apparent as to obviate any duty to warn against such operation ( see, Chien Hoang v. ICM Corp., 285 A.D.2d 971, 972; see generally, Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 241-242). The adequacy of the warnings on the table saw is also an issue of fact for trial ( see, Harrigan v. Super Prods. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 882; Smith v. Minster Mach. Co., supra, at 894).
We therefore modify the order by granting defendants' motion in part and dismissing the complaint against MCA and the negligence and strict products liability causes of action against Makita based on a manufacturing defect.