From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKeon v. Sears Roebuck and Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 11, 1993
190 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 11, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pecora, J.).


In this products liability action alleging a defect in the 10-inch radial arm saw, Sears Craftsman model series 1992, in that it did not contain a lower blade guard as part of its standard equipment, the IAS Court properly compelled discovery of various other models of the 10-inch radial arm saws manufactured by defendant Emerson Electric Co. for defendant Sear Roebuck, these products being substantially similar to that which was used by plaintiff and is claimed to be defective (Bertocci v Fiat Motors, 76 A.D.2d 779, 780). Nor is there merit to defendants' contention that disclosure of accidents, complaints, and lawsuits involving the lower blade guards on the 10-inch saws should be limited only to claims arising out of rip cut accidents such as was purportedly sustained by plaintiff, since it would be relevant to know whether the absence of a lower blade guard renders the machine dangerous regardless of the particular task being performed.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

McKeon v. Sears Roebuck and Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 11, 1993
190 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

McKeon v. Sears Roebuck and Co.

Case Details

Full title:WARWICK McKEON, Appellant-Respondent, v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND Co. et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 517

Citing Cases

Pacheco v. JPW Indus., Inc.

Ordinarily, plaintiff may be entitled to discovery on other models of products that are substantially similar…

Badalamenti v. N.Y

Before: Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Acosta, JJ. The motion court erred in denying…