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.
YOUNG SOOK HONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAN'S BEER AND SODA, INC., d/b/a White's Beer and Soda Distributors, Defendant, Universal Electric Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant Second and Third-Party Plaintiff; Everbrite Electric Signs, Inc., Third-Party Defendant; Miller Brewing Company, Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 1, 1997, as granted that branch of the second third-party defendant's motion which was for partial summary judgment on its cross claim against it for contractual indemnification.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Young Sook Hong was injured when she received an electrical shock while operating a neon sign advertising a beverage manufactured by the Miller Brewing Company (hereinafter Miller) in her deli/grocery store. Alleging, among other things, defective design and manufacture of the sign, the plaintiffs sued, inter alia, the defendant Universal Electric Corporation (hereinafter Universal), the manufacturer and seller of the sign, and Boening Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter Boening), the sign's distributor. Boening impleaded Miller, and Miller asserted a cross claim against Universal for contractual indemnification.
Miller was entitled to partial summary judgment against Universal based upon the clear language of paragraph 9 of its purchase order with Universal. Paragraph 9 of the purchase order provided that Universal, as the manufacturer and seller of Miller's signs, would hold Miller, the buyer, harmless, and would indemnify Miller for any and all judgments and related expenses resulting from, inter alia, claims for personal injuries connected with any goods sold pursuant to the purchase order.
To the extent that Universal asserts on appeal that even under the language of this contract Miller could arguably be held responsible for an unspecified “design defect” in the neon sign, we find its contention to be without merit. The evidence establishes that Miller had no role in developing the technical aspects of the neon sign, and that the sign was never in the physical possession of Miller, having been both manufactured and then shipped by Universal.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: May 04, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)