Williamson v. Hohl Electro-Mation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williamson v. Hohl Electro-Mation, Inc.

206 A.D.2d 829, 615 N.Y.S.2d 196

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 829 (Williamson v. Hohl Electro-Mation, Inc.) 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

Williamson v. Hohl Electro-Mation, Inc., 206 A.D.2d 829, 615 N.Y.S.2d 196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff Joseph Williamson, III, was injured when he received a 440-volt electrical shock upon accidentally touching a live portion of the electric control panel at his place of employment. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Factual issues exist whether material modifications to the door handle disconnect mechanism on the electric control panel were made before or after the accident, whether the design of the control panel was defective because [830]*830alternative feasible designs may have existed that would have provided greater protection to workers, and whether defendants failed to provide adequate warnings of the danger of live power to foreseeable users of the control panel. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Wesley and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff Joseph Williamson, III, was injured when he received a 440-volt electrical shock upon accidentally touching a live portion of the electric control panel at his place of employment. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Factual issues exist whether material modifications to the door handle disconnect mechanism on the electric control panel were made before or after the accident, whether the design of the control panel was defective because [830]*830alternative feasible designs may have existed that would have provided greater protection to workers, and whether defendants failed to provide adequate warnings of the danger of live power to foreseeable users of the control panel. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Wesley and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 829, 615 N.Y.S.2d 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-hohl-electro-mation-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack