Miller v. Anetsberger Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1986 |
| Citation | 508 N.Y.S.2d 954,124 A.D.2d 1057 |
| Parties | , 55 USLW 2343, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,176 Lawrence E. MILLER and Denise Miller, Respondents, v. ANETSBERGER BROTHERS, INC., Appellant, and Cable-Wiedemer, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Connors, Corcoran, Hall & Meyering by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for appellants (Appeals 1 & 2), respondent (Appeal 3).
Fiandach & Fiandach by Edward Fiandach, Rochester, for respondents (Appeals 1 & 2), appellants (Appeal 3).
Before DOERR, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, PINE and BALIO, JJ.
Plaintiff Denise Miller's finger was injured when it was pulled between a set of rollers of a pizza dough roller machine manufactured by defendant Anetsberger Brothers, Inc. There are three panels on the machine which are removable to permit access to the rollers during cleaning. Each of the panels is provided with a safety interlock switch which causes a break in the electrical current when a panel is removed, so that the rollers will not operate during the cleaning process. There was evidence at trial from which the jury could find that the safety switch on the front panel had been disabled, probably by one of the employees, by depressing the pin and moving it laterally so that it was held in a depressed position by the end of the bracket supporting it. Plaintiff, who had never cleaned the machine before, was cleaning the rollers by reaching her hand through the front panel and, in order to clean the area between the rollers, she turned on the machine. The injury to her finger occurred when she was wiping the rollers.
The court instructed the jury on two theories of strict products liability; defective design and failure to warn. Concerning the disabling of the safety switch, the court charged that if the jury found that employees had intentionally disabled the safety switch, it would have to find that the machine was not defective in design; but that in deciding whether the manufacturer was liable for failure to warn, it could take into consideration, among other things, the testimony as to the convenience afforded by cleaning the machine while it was operating, knowledge the manufacturer may have had that users of the machine had cleaned it while it was operating, and the "ease of disability of that (safety) switch." The jury, answering special questions, found that the product was not defective in design but that the manufacturer had failed to warn users of the dangers involved in cleaning the machine while it was operating.
Defendant contends that the court erred in its charge and that, as required by the holding of the Court of Appeals in Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440, it should have told the jury that if it found that the employees deliberately disabled the safety switch, the plaintiff could not recover either on the theory of defective design or on the theory of duty to warn. Defendant points particularly to the statement in Robinson, supra, p. 481, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440 that "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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derienzo v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
...judgment. Darsan v. Guncalito, 153 A.D.2d 868, 871, 545 N.Y.S.2d 594 (2d Dep't 1989); see also Miller v. Anetsberger Bros., Inc., 124 A.D.2d 1057, 1059, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 956 (4th Dep't 1986) (question of fact existed as to whether defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff of the danger of cle......
-
Colon ex rel. Molina v. Bic Usa, Inc.
...it is up to the jury to decide whether the manufacturer has, in fact, a duty to warn") (referring to Miller v. Anetsberger Bros., 124 A.D.2d 1057, 1059, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954 (4th Dept.1986) and Smith v. Royce W. Day Co., 242 A.D.2d 394, 661 N.Y.S.2d 101 (3d Dept.1997)). A failure-to-warn inquir......
-
Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co., Inc.
...Guncalito Corp., 153 A.D.2d 868, 545 N.Y.S.2d 594; Trivino v. Jamesway Corp., 148 A.D.2d 851, 539 N.Y.S.2d 123; Miller v. Anetsberger Bros., 124 A.D.2d 1057, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1 Weinberger, NY Products Liability, §§ 18.13, 23.10; 1 Frumer and Friedman, Products Liability, § 2.22[5]. Whether......
-
Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc.
...or sale of the machine. Unlike in Robinson, 49 N.Y.2d at 478, 426 N.Y.S.2d 717, 403 N.E.2d 440 or Miller v. Anetsberger, 124 A.D.2d 1057, 1058, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 955 (4th Dep't 1986), the record in this matter contains no evidence or testimony that defendant either had observed or was notif......