Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1981 |
| Citation | 438 N.Y.S.2d 602,81 A.D.2d 826 |
| Parties | Mary Patricia FOX et al., Respondents, v. CORNING GLASS WORKS, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Wilson, Bave, Hayes & Conboy, Yonkers (R. Kevin Conboy, Yonkers, of counsel), for appellant.
Raskin & Rappoport, New York City (Daniel E. Finn, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before TITONE, J. P., and RABIN, MARGETT and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 3, 1980, which is in favor of plaintiffs and against it, upon a jury verdict.
Amended judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
A 2 1/2-year old teapot manufactured by defendant burst apart while plaintiff Mary Fox was using it to boil water. She suffered serious injuries as a result. At the trial of this action, brought, inter alia, upon a theory of breach of an implied warranty of fitness, defendant's expert witness testified that it was his opinion that the accident resulted from a weakening of the structure of the teapot caused by impact with another object. Mrs. Fox denied that such an impact had occurred, but she presented no expert or other testimony on her behalf as to the cause of the accident.
We recognize that in a products liability case, the existence of a defect at the time that the product left the manufacturer's control may be proven by circumstantial evidence (see Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622). That is to say that generally, when evidence is offered that an accident had occurred during the normal use of a product and that the product had not been damaged or misused since it left the manufacturer's control, a trier of the facts will be permitted to infer that a defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control. However, once this inference has been countered, the plaintiff must come forward with some direct proof of the cause of the accident. Otherwise, any verdict which may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff will be based on pure conjecture as to the cause of the accident and, as such, cannot be allowed to stand (see Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U.S. 333, 53 S.Ct. 391, 77 L.Ed. 819; Halsey v. Ford Motor Co., 24 A.D.2d 826, 264 N.Y.S.2d 16, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 664, 278 N.Y.S.2d 856, 225 N.E.2d 549; White v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnick v. H.M.C. Associates
...991; Edwards v. Nemenyi, 92 A.D.2d 785, 459 N.Y.S.2d 622, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 800, 473 N.Y.S.2d 947, 462 N.E.2d 124; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, 81 A.D.2d 826, 438 N.Y.S.2d 602). Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the defect existed while the ladder was in Chesebro-Whitman's c......
-
Cornier v. Spagna
...Company, Inc., 89 A.D.2d 766, 453 N.Y.S.2d 934, aff'd 59 N.Y.2d 618, 463 N.Y.S.2d 194, 449 N.E.2d 1272; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc., 81 A.D.2d 826, 438 N.Y.S.2d 602. In this case no direct evidence was presented by the plaintiff to exclude that possibility, plaintiff's brain injury hav......
-
Schafer v. Standard Ry. Fusee Corp.
...159 A.D.2d 124, 127, 557 N.Y.S.2d 951, supra; Shelden v. Hample Equip. Co., 89 A.D.2d 766, 767, 453 N.Y.S.2d 934; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, 81 A.D.2d 826, 438 N.Y.S.2d 602; 1 NY PJI 2:141.1, 2:141.2 [1992 Supp]. Any issue concerning the plaintiff's alleged misuse of the flare by lighting ......
-
Brandon v. Caterpillar Tractor Corp.
...will be based on pure conjecture as to the cause of the accident and, as such, cannot be allowed to stand " (Fox v. Corning Glass Works, 81 A.D.2d 826, 438 N.Y.S.2d 602 [emphasis added] A res ipsa charge is, therefore, appropriate where the circumstances not only permit an inference that th......
-
Jury Instructions
...fail to prove this by competent evidence, then you must find in favor of the defendants. [ Id .; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc. , 81 A.D.2d 826 (2d Dept. 1981)]. JURY INSTRUCTIONS Form 32:90 New York Trial Notebook 32-36 FORM 32:90 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION: INTERVENING CAUSES PROPOSED JU......
-
Jury Instructions
...fail to prove this by competent evidence, then you must find in favor of the defendants. [ Id .; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc. , 81 A.D.2d 826 (2d Dept. 1981)]. JURY INSTRUCTIONS 32-41 Jury Instructions Form 32:90 FORM 32:90 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION: INTERVENING CAUSES PROPOSED JURY INS......
-
Jury Instructions
...fail to prove this by competent evidence, then you must ind in favor of the defendants. [ Id .; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc. , 81 A.D.2d 826 (2d Dept. 1981)]. JURY INSTRUCTIONS Form 32:90 New York Trial Notebook 32-40 FORM 32:90 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION: INTERVENING CAUSES PROPOSED JUR......
-
Jury Instructions
...fail to prove this by competent evidence, then you must ind in favor of the defendants. [ Id .; Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc. , 81 A.D.2d 826 (2d Dept. 1981)]. JURY INSTRUCTIONS Form 32:90 New York Trial Notebook 32-36 FORM 32:90 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION: INTERVENING CAUSES PROPOSED JUR......