Nickel v. Hyster Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
| Citation | 97 Misc.2d 770,412 N.Y.S.2d 273 |
| Parties | Elias NICKEL and Rose Marie Nickel, Plaintiffs, v. HYSTER COMPANY, Defendant. . I |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The principal issue on this motion by plaintiffs to amend their complaint is whether the doctrine of strict liability in tort encompasses the activities of repairers. The action itself arises from injuries incurred by plaintiff Elias Nickel when his employer's forklift truck, which had been repaired by the defendant, exploded. In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged that the accident occurred because of defendant's negligent repair of the truck, but by their current motion they seek to add a cause of action which would plead defendant's responsibility for the explosion under the doctrine of strict liability in tort. In a second branch of the motion, plaintiffs also seek to increase the amount of their ad damnum clause. The defendant argues that strict liability precepts are not applicable to repairers.
Under the traditional doctrine of strict liability in tort, a manufacturer who places a defective product on the market may be held liable for damages incurred by virtue of the product if it was placed on the market in the regular course of business (Restatement, Torts 2d § 402A). Although section 402A uses the specific term "seller," comment (f) makes it apparent that the rule applies to any manufacturer, wholesale or retail dealer, or distributor who is engaged in the business of selling products for use or consumption. Under the strict products liability doctrine as it exists in New York (see Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622), defendants can be manufacturers, distributors, retailers, processors and makers of component parts who sell the product alleged to have caused injury (2 PJI 2:141), in essence, those responsible for placing the defective product in the marketplace (Queensbury Union Free School District v. Jim Walter Corporation, 91 Misc.2d 804, 398 N.Y.S.2d 832). The prevailing view nationwide is that the doctrine of strict products liability is not applicable to providers of services including repairers . The Restatement itself is quite clear on the issue since it provides explicitly for a repairer's liability in negligence (Restatement, Torts 2d § 404) while limiting the scope of the strict liability section (402A) to sellers.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs argue that the opinions in Jackson v. Melvey, 56 A.D.2d 836, 392 N.Y.S.2d 312 and Martin v. Julius Dierck Equipment Co., 43 N.Y.2d 583, 403 N.Y.S.2d 185, 374 N.E.2d 97 support their contentions that strict liability is applicable to repairers. In Jackson, the defendant owner and the defendant operator of the vehicle in which the plaintiff-passenger was injured brought a third party action against the manufacturer and the dealer alleging that the accident occurred by reason of a defect in the steering mechanism which caused the steering wheel to lock. At the close of the third party plaintiffs' case the trial court dismissed those causes of action in the third party complaint sounding in negligence for failure of proof. At the close of the entire case the remaining cause of action for breach of warranty was dismissed as against the dealer as well. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the owner and operator in the main action and against the manufacturer in the third party action and apportioned liability among all three. The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the interlocutory judgment and granted a new trial as between the third party plaintiffs and the dealer on the issue of liability for breach of warranty. In its opinion the court noted that the dealer had "inspected and/or repaired the vehicle just one week after purchase and two weeks prior to the accident" and advised the owner "that the vehicle had been adjusted or repaired and that it was in good operating condition." The jury, the court concluded, "could have found that (the dealer), which held itself out as a repairer of automobiles and provided servicing and repairs under the new car warranty, failed to make the proper repairs . . . ." Plaintiffs contend that the Jackson court incorrectly labeled the cause of action against the dealer a breach of warranty action rather than one for strict products liability and in support of this position they cite Martin v. Julius Dierck Equipment Co., supra.
In Martin, as here, the plaintiff was injured while operating a forklift truck belonging to his employer, but his action was against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford v. International Harvester Co.
...liability if the sales aspect of the transaction predominates and the service aspect is merely incidental," Nickel v. Hyster Company, 97 Misc.2d 770, 773, 412 N.Y.S.2d 273, 276 (Sup.Ct., Suffolk Co. 1978), such a result has only been seen in cases where a retail seller provided some inciden......
-
Chandler v. Northwest Engineering Co.
...products liability (see Infante v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 49 A.D.2d 72, 75, 371 N.Y.S.2d 500)." As stated in Nickel v. Hyster Co., 97 Misc.2d 770, 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 273: "Although section 402 A uses the specific term 'seller', comment f makes it apparent that the rule applies to any manufac......
-
Levine v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
...v. Gwathmey Siegel & Assocs. Architects, 192 A.D.2d 151, 155, 601 N.Y.S.2d 116, 119 (1st Dep't 1993); Nickel v. Hyster Co., 97 Misc.2d 770, 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 273, 274-75 (N.Y.Sup.1978). In an effort to save her claim, plaintiff argues that liability may be found against Sears in its dual ro......
-
Ayala v. V & O Press Co.
... ... theory, because a repairer is simply not among those who are in the business of making and selling products for public consumption (see, Nickel v. Hyster Co., 97 Misc.2d 770, 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d ... 273 see, also, Raritan Trucking Corp. v. Aero Commander, 458 F.2d 1106 (3rd Cir.); Johnson ... ...