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.
Miguel RIOS, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents, [And A Third-Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered August 11, 1998, which, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's fourth cause of action for failure to warn but denied the motion insofar as it was addressed to plaintiff's remaining products liability causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While operating a printing press manufactured and sold by defendants, one of plaintiff's fingers became lodged in the press and was severed. At the time of the accident, the press was being operated without the safety guard with which it had been equipped by the manufacturer. Although defendants maintain that the removal of the safety guard constituted a material alteration of the press subsequent to its manufacture and sale cutting off their liability for the alleged product defect (see, Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 480, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440), the evidence on the motion established that the safety guard was designed to be removed from the press with relative ease to facilitate periodic press maintenance. The motion court correctly held that the removal of a safety guard designed to be readily removed did not constitute a material alteration. Also correct was the court's finding that the affidavit of plaintiff's expert raised triable issues as to whether a press such as the one at issue, designed so as to be operable without a safety guard, was reasonably safe for its intended uses when placed in the stream of commerce (see, Lopez v. Precision Papers, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 667, 669, 484 N.Y.S.2d 585, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 871, 501 N.Y.S.2d 798, 492 N.E.2d 1214). Plaintiff's cause of action predicated on defendants' failure adequately to warn of the danger of operating the press without a safety guard was properly dismissed since the evidence showed that there were two prominently placed warnings of that danger on the press.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)