Hutchinson v. Crown Equipment Corp.
Decision Date | 05 February 2008 |
Docket Number | 2007-01017. |
Citation | 48 A.D.3d 421,2008 NY Slip Op 01112,852 N.Y.S.2d 187 |
Parties | ANTHONY HUTCHINSON et al., Respondents, v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Anthony Hutchinson was injured while working on a forklift manufactured by the defendant Crown Equipment Corp., and leased to his employer by the defendant Crown Credit Company (hereinafter collectively the Crown defendants). He and his wife, the plaintiff Denise Hutchinson, brought this action asserting claims, inter alia, of design defect and products liability. The plaintiffs sought to prove the existence of a design defect through the testimony of an expert who was of the opinion that the forklift should have been equipped with a compartment door which would have prevented the plaintiff Anthony Hutchinson from being ejected from the forklift at the time of the accident, and that its braking system was defectively designed as it did not employ "redundancy and/or failsafe circuitry."
The Crown defendants moved to preclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert, or alternatively, for a Frye hearing (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]), and also moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs' expert witness was qualified to testify (see Pignataro v Galarzia, 303 AD2d 667 [2003]). Moreover, under the facts of this case, the plaintiffs' expert's conclusions as to the lack of a compartment door and the defective design of the braking system were not based on novel theories and did not warrant a preliminary F...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Temperino v. Amchem Prods.
...the scientific community (see Ratner v McNeil-PPC, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 63, 933 N.Y.S.2d 323: Hutchinson v Crown Equip. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 421. 852N.Y.S.2d 187; see generally Adamy v Ziriakus. 92 N.Y.2d 396. N.Y.S.2d463 [1998]). If such a showing is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to......
-
Formica v. Formica
...303 A.D.2d 667, 667–668, 757 N.Y.S.2d 76;see Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 998, 1000, 914 N.Y.S.2d 238;Hutchinson v. Crown Equip. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 421, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187). An expert is qualified to proffer an opinion if he or she possesses “the requisite skill, training, education, kn......
-
Krackmalnik v. Maimonides Med. Ctr.
...expert was not based on novel theories and did not warrant a preliminary Frye -type hearing (see Hutchinson v. Crown Equip. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 421, 421–422, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187 ; Parker v. Crown Equip. Corp., 39 A.D.3d 347, 348, 835 N.Y.S.2d 46 ; Marsh v. Smyth, 12 A.D.3d 307, 307–308, 785 N.Y.S......
-
Melendez v. Abel Womack, Inc.
...in strict products liability, defective design, and negligent design insofar as asserted against them ( see Hutchinson v. Crown Equip. Corp., 48 A.D.3d 421, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187). ...
-
Expert witnesses
...of glass and ceramics could testify that synagogue door had been struck by a bottle and not rocks. Hutchinson v. Crown Equipment Corp. , 48 A.D.3d 421, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187 (2d Dept. 2008). Plaintif ’s expert witness was qualiied to testify to a design defect in a forklift involving the lack of......
-
Expert witnesses
...of glass and ceramics could testify that synagogue door had been struck by a bottle and not rocks. Hutchinson v. Crown Equipment Corp. , 48 A.D.3d 421, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187 (2d Dept. 2008). Plaintif ’s expert witness was qualiied to testify to a design defect in a forklift involving the lack of......
-
Expert witnesses
...of glass and ceramics could testify that synagogue door had been struck by a bottle and not rocks. Hutchinson v. Crown Equip. Corp. , 48 A.D.3d 421, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187 (2d Dept. 2008). Plaintiff ’s expert witness was qualified to testify to a design defect in a forklift involving the lack of ......
-
Expert witnesses
...of glass and ceramics could testify that synagogue door had been struck by a bottle and not rocks. Hutchinson v. Crown Equipment Corp. , 48 A.D.3d 421, 852 N.Y.S.2d 187 (2d Dept. 2008). Plaintiff’s expert witness was qualified to testify to a design defect in a forklift involving the lack o......