From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Robert Bosch Power Tool Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).


We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs presented substantial circumstantial evidence in support of their design defect and failure to warn claims. "`"Proof of defendant's liability may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence."'" ( Flynn v Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 94 A.D.2d 617, 618, affd 61 N.Y.2d 769.) A jury could reasonably infer that defendant-appellant's chop saw was defectively designed and that the "defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury" ( Voss v Black Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 110).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Robert Bosch Power Tool Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Robinson v. Robert Bosch Power Tool Corp.

Case Details

Full title:VERONICA ROBINSON, as Conservator of VINCENT T. ROBINSON, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

Place v. Federal Pacific Electric Co.

' ( Supra, at 499.)" Here, there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to prove that plaintiff's…

Frenza v. Montgomery Trading Co.

This showing may include direct as well as circumstantial evidence. Gurfein Bros., Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co.,…