Schneider v. Verson Allsteel Press Co.

236 A.D.2d 806, 653 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1731
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 806 (Schneider v. Verson Allsteel Press 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
Schneider v. Verson Allsteel Press Co., 236 A.D.2d 806, 653 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting in its entirety the motion of defendant, Verson All-steel Press Co. (Verson), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Friedmut X. Schneider (plaintiff) had two fingers amputated when a 300-ton press manufactured by Verson cycled while plaintiff’s hand was inside the die space. We agree with plaintiff that the affidavit of an expert, a professor of mechanical engineering, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether the press was defective when manufactured because it did not have protective guards around the die space (see, Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157, 168). We further conclude that a triable issue of fact exists whether subsequent alterations to the machine made by plaintiff’s employer, third-party defendant Harrison Radiator Div. of General Motors Corp., rather than the lack of protective guards, were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Smith v Minster Mach. Co., 233 AD2d 892; Lamey v Foley, supra, at 168). Finally, whether the action of plaintiff in placing his hand inside the die area was a superseding cause of his injuries presents a question for the jury (see, Lamey v Foley, supra, at 169).

Thus, we modify the order by denying in part the motion of Verson for summary judgment and reinstating that part of the complaint alleging strict products liability based upon design defect. The complaint, insofar as it alleges a cause of action based upon Verson’s failure to warn, however, was properly dismissed. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

TERWILLIGER, CHARLES v. MAX CO., LTD.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Terwilliger v. Max Co.
137 A.D.3d 1699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Repka v. Arctic Cat, Inc.
20 A.D.3d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Williams v. Tennien
294 A.D.2d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Hoang v. ICM Corp.
285 A.D.2d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D.2d 806, 653 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-verson-allsteel-press-co-nyappdiv-1997.