Lauber v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

273 A.D.2d 922, 709 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6802
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2000·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: John Lauber (plaintiff) was injured while driving a tractor purchased from defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company and manufactured by defendant American Yard Products Division, WCI Outdoor Products, Inc. Plaintiff turned around to observe traffic, placing his hand on the rear fender of the tractor to balance himself, and his fingers were caught in the chains of the rear wheel. He commenced this action asserting causes of action for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability.

Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that there was no defect in the design or manufacture of the tractor and that they were riot negligent in its design or manufacture (see, Rochester Refrig. Corp. v Easy Heat, 222 AD2d 1013, 1014, lv dismissed 87 NY2d 1056, lv denied 89 NY2d 817). Defendants established that, in the exercise of reasonable care, plaintiff should have discovered that the rear fender was approximately IV2 inches above the tire and that, if his hand came in contact with the moving tire, an injury would occur (see generally, Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106). Defendants further established that the tractor was reasonably safe for the ordinary purposes for which it is used (see generally, UCC 2-314 [2] [c]; Affuso v Crestline Plastic Pipe Co., 194 AD2d 884, 885). Finally, defendants established that they had no duty to warn; the danger of placing fingers close to a moving wheel is among the “limited class of hazards” for which no warning is necessary “because they are patently dangerous or pose open and obvious risks” (Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232, 241). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any cause of action. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes and Hurlbutt, JJ.

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

Lauber v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 273 A.D.2d 922, 709 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

273 A.D.2d 922 (Lauber v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

YARGEAU, ALICE v. LASERTRON
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Yargeau v. Lasertron
128 A.D.3d 1369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sapp v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works
45 A.D.3d 1261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc.
38 A.D.3d 1163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Smith v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
34 A.D.3d 1308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Wesp v. Carl Zeiss, Inc.
11 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lamb v. Kysor Industrial Corp.
305 A.D.2d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Felle v. W.W. Grainger, Inc.
302 A.D.2d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Burke v. Spartanics Ltd.
252 F.3d 131 (Second Circuit, 2001)