Cramer v. Toledo Scale Co., Inc., 1

• Decision Date: 02 February 1990
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,522 Gerald F. CRAMER, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Jason Cramer, an Infant, and Gerald F. Cramer, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO SCALE CO., INC., Toledo Scale Company and Reliance Electric Company, Defendants-Respondents. Appeal
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 718

551 N.Y.S.2d 718

158 A.D.2d 966, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,522

Gerald F. CRAMER, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Jason Cramer, an Infant, and Gerald F. Cramer Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO SCALE CO., INC., Toledo Scale Company and Reliance Electric Company, Defendants-Respondents. Appeal No. 1.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Feb. 2, 1990.

Walsh, Roberts & Grace by Gerald Grace Jr., Buffalo, for plaintiff-appellant.

Magner, Love & Morris, P.C. by William Love Jr., Buffalo, for defendants-respondents.

Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, PINE, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On November 23, 1979, eight-year-old Jason Cramer suffered severe injuries to his right hand while attempting to push deer meat into a meat grinder. At the time of the injury, Jason and his parents were in the basement of a home owned by Donald Jagow, who had been grinding deer meat for plaintiff Gerald Cramer, Jason's father. Jagow owned the commercial meat grinder known as a Toledo Chopper, Model 5126, designed and manufactured by defendant Toledo Scale Co., a division of defendant Reliance Electric Co.

In October 1980, plaintiff commenced this action alleging causes of action in negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty. In February 1988, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims based upon allegations of failure to warn, and in August 1988, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action in negligence and strict products liability "to the extent they assert a claim of manufacturing defect." Supreme Court granted both motions, and we affirm.

A manufacturer of a product can be held liable for failing to "provide adequate warnings regarding the use of the product" (Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 107, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204; see also, Sukljian v. Ross & Son Co., 69 N.Y.2d 89, 94, 511 N.Y.S.2d 821, 503 N.E.2d 1358; Torrogrossa v. Towmotor Co., 44 N.Y.2d 709, 711, 405 N.Y.S.2d 448, 376 N.E.2d 920) if it is established that defendant's failure to warn is the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury (Belling v. Haugh's Pools, 126 A.D.2d 958, 959, 511 N.Y.S.2d 732, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 602, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 512 N.E.2d 550). Adequate warnings must be given concerning dangers inherent in the contemplated use or reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product (Trivino v. Jamesway Corp., 148 A.D.2d 851, 852, 539 N.Y.S.2d 123, citing McLaughlin v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 11 N.Y.2d 62, 226 N.Y.S.2d 407, 181 N.E.2d 430; Howard Stores Corp. v. Pope, 1 N.Y.2d 110, 150 N.Y.S.2d 792, 134 N.E.2d 63; see also, Miller v. Anetsberger Bros., 124 A.D.2d 1057, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954).

In support of the claim of failure to warn, plaintiff asserts that defendants should have equipped the grinder with a "power-on" light and should have placed a written or visual warning on the grinder to alert a user of the danger of inserting one's hand into its feed chute. The record demonstrates, however, that the absence of a "power-on" light neither caused nor contributed to Jason's injuries. Jason testified that he knew that the meat grinder was on when the injury occurred. Additionally, it cannot be said that an eight-year-old boy is a reasonably foreseeable user of a meat grinder which was manufactured and distributed for...