Andujar v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andujar v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

193 A.D.2d 415, 597 N.Y.S.2d 78

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 415 (Andujar v. Sears Roebuck & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andujar v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 193 A.D.2d 415, 597 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about February 26, 1992, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff $94,214 against defendant Sears Roebuck and Co. and $46,500 against defendant Emerson Electric Co., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff brought suit alleging that he sustained injury while using a table saw as a result of both defective design and inadequate warning. Inasmuch as Sears held itself out as the manufacturer of the saw, it is held to the same level of care as would any other manufacturer of a product for sale to the public (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v City Chem. Corp., 290 NY 64, 69; see, Restatement [Second] of Torts § 400). Accordingly, Sears had a duty to test for design defects. Thus, the court’s charge that Sears, as a retailer, had that duty, was fully in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about February 26, 1992, which, inter alia, awarded plaintiff $94,214 against defendant Sears Roebuck and Co. and $46,500 against defendant Emerson Electric Co., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff brought suit alleging that he sustained injury while using a table saw as a result of both defective design and inadequate warning. Inasmuch as Sears held itself out as the manufacturer of the saw, it is held to the same level of care as would any other manufacturer of a product for sale to the public (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v City Chem. Corp., 290 NY 64, 69; see, Restatement [Second] of Torts § 400). Accordingly, Sears had a duty to test for design defects. Thus, the court’s charge that Sears, as a retailer, had that duty, was fully in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 415, 597 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andujar-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack