From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Gelco Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Rose v Gelco Corporation, 261 AD2d 381, 688 NYS2d 259, the plaintiff employee sustained physical injury during the course of his employment when he tripped and fell over a fire extinguisher installed in a van by defendant company.

Summary of this case from Tacuri v. Begley

Opinion

May 3, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Robert Rose sustained physical injuries during the course of his employment with Whirlpool Corporation (hereinafter Whirlpool) when he tripped and fell over a fire extinguisher which had been installed in a van by the defendant Allen Group, Inc. (hereinafter Allen). The van had been leased by Whirlpool from the defendants Gelco Corporation, and Gelco Corp./G.E. Capital Fleet Services (hereinafter collectively referred to as Gelco). Since Whirlpool is immune from suit under the Workers' Compensation Law, there can be no liability imputed to Gelco as owner of the van ( see, Heritage v. Van Patten, 59 N.Y.2d 1017; Rauch v. Jones, 4 N.Y.2d 592, 596; Naso v. Lafata, 4 N.Y.2d 585; Christiansen v. Silver Lake Contr. Corp., 188 A.D.2d 507, 508; Jaglall v. Supreme Petroleum Co., 185 A.D.2d 971; Constantine v. Sperry Corp., 149 A.D.2d 394). Furthermore, the plaintiffs have failed to allege any independent negligence on the part of Gelco ( see, Delio v. Percom Equip. Rental Corp., 249 A.D.2d 354; Jaglall v. Supreme Petroleum Co., supra).

The plaintiffs are also not entitled to recovery under a theory of strict products liability or breach of implied warranty as the allegations in support of these causes of action are devoid of a factual basis and are vague and conclusory ( see, Schuckman Realty v. Marine Midland Bank, 244 A.D.2d 400). The factual allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient to support the claim that the van was defectively designed or manufactured ( see, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413, 425; Voss v. Black Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 106-107).

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rose v. Gelco Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Rose v Gelco Corporation, 261 AD2d 381, 688 NYS2d 259, the plaintiff employee sustained physical injury during the course of his employment when he tripped and fell over a fire extinguisher installed in a van by defendant company.

Summary of this case from Tacuri v. Begley
Case details for

Rose v. Gelco Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ROSE et al., Appellants, v. GELCO CORPORATION et al., Respondents…

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

Date published: May 3, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 259

Citing Cases

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Deleware

In similar circumstances, New York courts have rejected attempts by plaintiffs to avoid the reach of the…

Yakushin v. Globalstar, Inc.

That the phone did not work when and where it was supposed to work, absent any other details, is too vague…