McKeon v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKeon v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

242 A.D.2d 503, 662 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9139

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 503 (McKeon 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

McKeon v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 242 A.D.2d 503, 662 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Interlocutory judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Coutant, J., and a jury), entered on or about April 22, 1996, apportioning liability 15% against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs expert witness rendered his opinions as to the [504]*504safety of the design of defendants’ radial arm saw, and the feasibility of manufacturing a safer yet cost-effective design, based upon his examination of the machine, comparison of different types of blade guards manufactured by defendants and other companies, or found in a prototype designed by the expert himself, plaintiffs account of the accident, the angle of the cuts to plaintiffs fingers, and the location of the blood' and severed fingertips found after the incident. Such constituted a sufficient foundation for presenting the expert’s opinions to the jury, including how plaintiffs hand could have made contact with the rotating blade (see, Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 NY2d 410, 414). The trial court properly declined to charge assumption of risk, or that compliance with the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) requirements was some evidence of negligence. The overall charge was sufficiently specific as to the issues and the parties’ opposing positions. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Interlocutory judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Coutant, J., and a jury), entered on or about April 22, 1996, apportioning liability 15% against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs expert witness rendered his opinions as to the [504]*504safety of the design of defendants’ radial arm saw, and the feasibility of manufacturing a safer yet cost-effective design, based upon his examination of the machine, comparison of different types of blade guards manufactured by defendants and other companies, or found in a prototype designed by the expert himself, plaintiffs account of the accident, the angle of the cuts to plaintiffs fingers, and the location of the blood' and severed fingertips found after the incident. Such constituted a sufficient foundation for presenting the expert’s opinions to the jury, including how plaintiffs hand could have made contact with the rotating blade (see, Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 NY2d 410, 414). The trial court properly declined to charge assumption of risk, or that compliance with the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) requirements was some evidence of negligence. The overall charge was sufficiently specific as to the issues and the parties’ opposing positions. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 503, 662 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeon-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack