Frey v. Rockford Safety Equipment Co.

• Decision Date: 06 October 1989
• Citation: 154 A.D.2d 899,546 N.Y.S.2d 54
• Parties: Mary FREY, Appellant, v. ROCKFORD SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, SearJeant Safety Products Division of Hansford Manufacturing Corporation, Respondents. ROCKFORD SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QUALITROL CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 54

546 N.Y.S.2d 54

154 A.D.2d 899

Mary FREY, Appellant, v. ROCKFORD SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, SearJeant Safety Products

Division of Hansford Manufacturing Corporation,

Respondents.

ROCKFORD SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QUALITROL CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Oct. 6, 1989.

Foley & Foley by James Foley, Palmyra, for appellant.

Bayer & Smith by Casey Callanan, Rochester, for respondent, Rockford.

Harter, Secrest & Emery by Edward Premo, II, Rochester, for respondent, Searjet Safety Products.

Roger Preston, Jr., Rochester, for respondent, Qualitrol.

Before DILLON, P.J., and DENMAN, BOOMER, GREEN and DAVIS,

MEMORANDUM:

The court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, the manufacturers of two safety components incorporated into a punch press, on the ground that plaintiff's employer had modified and in fact defeated the purpose of the safety components, thus causing plaintiff's injury. A manufacturer may not be cast in damages, either for negligence or for products liability, where, after the product leaves the manufacturer's hands, there is a subsequent modification that substantially alters the product and is the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 475, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440). That is true whether a plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for an alleged product defect or for an alleged failure to warn (Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., supra, at 480, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440; Magee v. Bliss Co., 120 A.D.2d 926, 502 N.Y.S.2d 886; see also, Kingsland v. Industrial Brown Hoist Co., 136 A.D.2d 901, 524 N.Y.S.2d 929). As revealed by the parties' submissions, plaintiff's injury was the direct result of her employer's installation of a switch allowing the press to be operated without the barrier device. Were it not for that modification, the machine could not have been operated with plaintiff's hands in proximity to the ram. The modification was accomplished without the knowledge of either defendant. "Material alterations at the hands of a third party which work a substantial change in the condition in which the product was sold by destroying the functional utility of a key safety feature, however foreseeable that modification may have been, are not within the ambit of a manufacturer's responsibility" (Robinson v....