Frey v. Rockford Safety Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frey v. Rockford Safety Equipment Co.

154 A.D.2d 899, 546 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12853

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 899 (Frey v. Rockford Safety Equipment 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

Frey v. Rockford Safety Equipment Co., 154 A.D.2d 899, 546 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, the manufacturers of two safety components incorporated into a punch press, on the ground that plaintiff’s employer had modified and in fact defeated the purpose of the safety components, thus causing plaintiff’s injury. A manufacturer may not be cast in damages, either for negligence or for products liability, where, after the product leaves the manufacturer’s hands, there is a subsequent modification that substantially alters the product and is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, 49 NY2d 471, 475). That is true whether a plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for an alleged product defect or for an alleged failure to warn (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, supra, at 480; Magee v Bliss Co., 120 AD2d 926; see also, Kingsland v Industrial Brown Hoist Co., 136 AD2d 901). As revealed by the parties’ submissions, plaintiff’s injury was the direct result of her employer’s installation of a switch that allowed the press to be operated without the barrier device. Were it not for that modification, the machine [900]*900could not have been operated with plaintiffs hands in proximity to the ram. The modification was accomplished without the knowledge of either defendant. "Material alterations at the hands of a third party which work a substantial change in the condition in which the product was sold by destroying the functional utility of a key safety feature, however foreseeable that modification may have been, are not within the ambit of a manufacturer’s responsibility” (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, supra, at 481). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J. — summary judgment.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, the manufacturers of two safety components incorporated into a punch press, on the ground that plaintiff’s employer had modified and in fact defeated the purpose of the safety components, thus causing plaintiff’s injury. A manufacturer may not be cast in damages, either for negligence or for products liability, where, after the product leaves the manufacturer’s hands, there is a subsequent modification that substantially alters the product and is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, 49 NY2d 471, 475). That is true whether a plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for an alleged product defect or for an alleged failure to warn (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, supra, at 480; Magee v Bliss Co., 120 AD2d 926; see also, Kingsland v Industrial Brown Hoist Co., 136 AD2d 901). As revealed by the parties’ submissions, plaintiff’s injury was the direct result of her employer’s installation of a switch that allowed the press to be operated without the barrier device. Were it not for that modification, the machine [900]*900could not have been operated with plaintiffs hands in proximity to the ram. The modification was accomplished without the knowledge of either defendant. "Material alterations at the hands of a third party which work a substantial change in the condition in which the product was sold by destroying the functional utility of a key safety feature, however foreseeable that modification may have been, are not within the ambit of a manufacturer’s responsibility” (Robinson v Reed-Prentice, supra, at 481). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J. — summary judgment.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 899, 546 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frey-v-rockford-safety-equipment-co-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack