From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Precision Papers, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1986
67 N.Y.2d 871 (N.Y. 1986)

Summary

holding that the record presented triable issues of fact concerning whether the subject forklift, as marketed with an attached but removable overhead safety guard, was not reasonably safe for the uses intended or reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer

Summary of this case from Guard Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.

Opinion

Argued February 4, 1986

Decided March 18, 1986

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, William T. Bellard, J.

Herbert Rubin, Michael Hoenig, David B. Hamm and Jack E. Toliver for appellant.

Cheryl Eisberg Moin, Emilio Nunez, Harry H. Lipsig, Jay W. Dankner and Pamela Anagnos Liapakis for respondents.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The record presents triable issues of fact concerning whether the forklift, as marketed with an attached but removable overhead safety guard, was "not reasonably safe" (Voss v Black Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 108) for the uses intended or reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer (see, Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 N.Y.2d 376, 385-386).

As correctly noted by the Appellate Division in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212), this court's holding in Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. ( 49 N.Y.2d 471) does not compel a different result. In contrast with the detaching of the removable safety guard in this case, Robinson involved "[m]aterial alterations [i.e., cutting a 6-inch by 14-inch access hole in the safety gate of a plastic molding machine] which work[ed] a substantial change in the condition in which the product was sold by destroying the functional utility of a key safety feature" (49 N.Y.2d, at p 481). There is evidence in this record that the forklift was purposefully manufactured to permit its use without the safety guard.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and HANCOCK, JR., concur; Judge TITONE taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.


Summaries of

Lopez v. Precision Papers, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1986
67 N.Y.2d 871 (N.Y. 1986)

holding that the record presented triable issues of fact concerning whether the subject forklift, as marketed with an attached but removable overhead safety guard, was not reasonably safe for the uses intended or reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer

Summary of this case from Guard Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.

In Lopez v. Precision Papers, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 871, 492 N.E.2d 1214, 501 N.Y.S.2d 798 (1986), the court held that a disablement does not necessarily foreclose liability where safeguards can be easily removed and where such removal thereby increases the efficacy of the product.

Summary of this case from Liriano v. Hobart Corporation

In Lopez, the Court said: "[T]his court's holding in Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. (49 N.Y.2d 471) does not compel a different result.

Summary of this case from Tuesca v. Rando Machine Corp.

In Lopez v. Precision Papers (67 N.Y.2d 871, affg 107 A.D.2d 667), the court qualified the rule enunciated in Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. (supra), by holding that a manufacturer may be held liable under a design defect theory where the product is purposefully manufactured so as to permit its use without a certain safety feature which was designed to be removable (see also, Ayala v. V O Press Co., 126 A.D.2d 229).

Summary of this case from McAvoy v. Outboard Marine Corp.

In Lopez v. Precision Papers (67 N.Y.2d 871, affg 107 A.D.2d 667), the Court of Appeals held that a manufacturer of a product, the design of which incorporates a certain safety feature, may be held liable under a design defect theory even though the removal of that safety feature caused the accident, provided that the product "was purposefully manufactured to permit its use without the safety guard" (Lopez v. Precision Papers, supra, at 873).

Summary of this case from Ayala v. V O Press Co.
Case details for

Lopez v. Precision Papers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PABLO LOPEZ et al., Respondents, v. PRECISION PAPERS, INC., et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 18, 1986

Citations

67 N.Y.2d 871 (N.Y. 1986)
501 N.Y.S.2d 798
492 N.E.2d 1214

Citing Cases

Sage v. Fairchild-Swearingen

The determination of whether a product is defectively designed requires a balancing of the likelihood of harm…

Patino v. Lockformer Company, Inc.

Lockformer and Weiss moved for summary judgment asserting that under the holding of Robinson v. Reed Prentice…