Wider v. Family Gard, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wider v. Family Gard, Inc.

197 A.D.2d 892, 602 N.Y.S.2d 292

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The only negligence attributed to defendants is that they supplied a battery operated smoke detector that had no device to warn plaintiff when there was no battery in the detector. The danger of maintaining a smoke detector without a battery in place is obvious. Thus, defendants owed plaintiff no duty to warn him that the detector would not work without a battery (see, Trivino v Jamesway Corp., 148 AD2d 851, 853; Laaperi v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 787 F2d 726). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The only negligence attributed to defendants is that they supplied a battery operated smoke detector that had no device to warn plaintiff when there was no battery in the detector. The danger of maintaining a smoke detector without a battery in place is obvious. Thus, defendants owed plaintiff no duty to warn him that the detector would not work without a battery (see, Trivino v Jamesway Corp., 148 AD2d 851, 853; Laaperi v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 787 F2d 726). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Wider v. Family Gard, Inc., 197 A.D.2d 892, 602 N.Y.S.2d 292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

197 A.D.2d 892 (Wider v. Family Gard, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related