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.
Kathleen LOBELLO, Judy A. Miller and Cheryl Winters, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries they sustained during the course of their employment while they were loading trash into a dumpster supplied to their employer by defendant. Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. With respect to the negligence causes of action, defendant established that it owed no duty of care to plaintiffs as a matter of law (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 138-140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485; see also Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 585-587, 611 N.Y.S.2d 817, 634 N.E.2d 189; Morgan v. Whitestown Am. Legion Post No. 1113, 309 A.D.2d 1222, 765 N.Y.S.2d 106). Defendant also established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability and breach of warranty causes of action, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Defendant established as a matter of law that the dumpster was not defective (see Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Assoc., Inc., 17 A.D.3d 503, 506, 793 N.Y.S.2d 468, affd. 5 N.Y.3d 859, 807 N.Y.S.2d 11, 840 N.E.2d 1024; see generally Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 479-480, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440); that there was no duty to warn of the risks inherent in lifting heavy loads of trash into the dumpster (see Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 241-242, 677 N.Y.S.2d 764, 700 N.E.2d 303; Gian v. Cincinnati Inc., 17 A.D.3d 1014, 1016, 794 N.Y.S.2d 215); and that the dumpster was fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used (see Butler v. Interlake Corp., 244 A.D.2d 913, 915, 665 N.Y.S.2d 192; see generally Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248, 258-259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730, rearg. denied 87 N.Y.2d 969, 642 N.Y.S.2d 198, 664 N.E.2d 1261).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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: December 22, 2006
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)