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 MAYORGA, et al., Appellants, v. REED-PRENTICE PACKAGING MACHINERY COMPANY, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 28, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant Reed-Prentice Packaging Machinery Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Miguel Mayorga (hereinafter Mayorga) was injured on February 23, 1991, when his hand was amputated by a plastic injection machine which allegedly malfunctioned as he attempted to remove a piece of plastic from between the open dies of the machine. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced the instant personal injury action against Reed-Prentice Packaging Machinery Company (hereinafter Reed-Prentice), which manufactured the plastic injection machine in 1955, and Mayorga's employers, who owned and operated the machine. Reed-Prentice moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
The court properly concluded that Reed-Prentice did not have a duty to design invincible, fail-safe, and accident-proof products that are incapable of wearing out. The remedy remains in having the machinery inspected periodically so that worn parts may be replaced (see, Auld v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 261 A.D. 918, 25 N.Y.S.2d 491, affd. 288 N.Y. 515, 41 N.E.2d 927; Beckhusen v. E. P. Lawson Co., 9 A.D.2d 536, 196 N.Y.S.2d 531, revd. on other grounds 9 N.Y.2d 726, 214 N.Y.S.2d 342, 174 N.E.2d 327).
Furthermore, the plaintiffs' argument that Mayorga could have inadvertently tapped the electrical interlock switch without realizing his mistake is pure speculation, insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Moreover, during his deposition, Mayorga testified that he was 100 percent sure that no part of his body contacted the switch.
Finally, the plaintiffs' contention that the absence of warnings on the machine was a proximate cause of Mayorga's injury is without merit. During his deposition Mayorga testified that the malfunction which caused his injury had occurred on several prior occasions. “[I]nasmuch as a warning would not have given the [injured] plaintiff any better knowledge of the [machine's malfunctions] than he had already acquired through his prior use of the machine * * * the absence of any warning could not have proximately caused [his] injuries” (Baptiste v. Northfield Foundry & Mach. Co., 184 A.D.2d 841, 843-844, 584 N.Y.S.2d 221; see also, Smith v. Stark, 67 N.Y.2d 693, 694, 499 N.Y.S.2d 922, 490 N.E.2d 841; Van Buskirk v. Migliorelli, 185 A.D.2d 587, 590, 586 N.Y.S.2d 378).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: April 21, 1997
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)