From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patane v. Thompson Johnson Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 8, 1996
233 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

November 8, 1996.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Before: Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Plaintiff commenced this action sounding in negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained in the course of his employment at Peter's Groceries, Inc. (Peter's). Plaintiff and a coemployee were assigned the task of consolidating and storing various grocery products. A forklift truck was utilized to move the groceries to a storage area. While operating the forklift truck in a reverse direction, the coemployee allegedly struck plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries. Plaintiff alleged that defendant is liable to him because it failed to equip the forklift truck with a back-up warning alarm. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and Supreme Court granted its motion. We affirm.

Defendant, the supplier of the forklift truck, established its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Defendant demonstrated that the forklift truck was reasonably safe, thus satisfying its duty not to market a defective product. It further demonstrated that the back-up warning alarm is not mandated by any Federal or State law, rule or regulation; that it advised Peter's in writing of the availability of certain optional safety devices, including a back-up warning alarm; and that Peter's, who was in the best position to evaluate the need for such safety devices based upon the environment in which the forklift truck would be used, made a deliberate decision not to purchase the warning alarm. Plaintiff failed either to "demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure so to do" ( Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560). Therefore, under the circumstances, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant ( see, Paul v Ford Motor Co., 200 AD2d 724, lv denied 83 NY2d 757; Fallon v Hannay Son, 153 AD2d 95; Biss v Tenneco, Inc., 64 AD2d 204, lv denied 46 NY2d 711). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Summary Judgment.)


Summaries of

Patane v. Thompson Johnson Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 8, 1996
233 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Patane v. Thompson Johnson Equipment Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN PATANE, Appellant, v. THOMPSON AND JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO., INC.…

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1996

Citations

233 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
649 N.Y.S.2d 547

Citing Cases

Dick v. Nacco Meterials

Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the…

Dimaria v. Komatsu Forklift U.S.A., Inc.

(Yamazaki Tr. 17; Fernandez Tr. 24-25, 42). Komatsu further maintains that a manufacturer cannot be held…