Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John LAUBER and Carolyn Lauber, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY and American Yard Products Division, WCI Outdoor Products, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.
John Lauber (plaintiff) was injured while driving a tractor purchased from defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company and manufactured by defendant American Yard Products Division, WCI Outdoor Products, Inc. Plaintiff turned around to observe traffic, placing his hand on the rear fender of the tractor to balance himself, and his fingers were caught in the chains of the rear wheel. He commenced this action asserting causes of action for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability.
Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that there was no defect in the design or manufacture of the tractor and that they were not negligent in its design or manufacture (see, Rochester Refrig. Corp. v. Easy Heat, 222 A.D.2d 1013, 1014, 635 N.Y.S.2d 890, lv. dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1056, 644 N.Y.S.2d 148, 666 N.E.2d 1062, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 817, 659 N.Y.S.2d 858, 681 N.E.2d 1305). Defendants established that, in the exercise of reasonable care, plaintiff should have discovered that the rear fender was approximately 1 1/212 inches above the tire and that, if his hand came in contact with the moving tire, an injury would occur (see generally, Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 106, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204). Defendants further established that the tractor was reasonably safe for the ordinary purposes for which it is used (see generally, UCC 2-314[2][c]; Affuso v. Crestline Plastic Pipe Co., 194 A.D.2d 884, 885, 599 N.Y.S.2d 157). Finally, defendants established that they had no duty to warn; the danger of placing fingers close to a moving wheel is among the “limited class of hazards” for which no warning is necessary “because they are patently dangerous or pose open and obvious risks” (Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 241, 677 N.Y.S.2d 764, 700 N.E.2d 303). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any cause of action.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)