Scarangella v. THOMAS BUILT
Decision Date | 06 July 1999 |
Citation | 93 N.Y.2d 655,717 N.E.2d 679,695 N.Y.S.2d 520 |
Parties | CONCETTA SCARANGELLA et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. HUNTINGTON COACH CORP., INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Sullivan & Liapakis, P. C., New York City (Stephen C. Glasser, Sidney H. Asch and Robert G. Sullivan of counsel), for appellants.
Linda Trummer-Napolitano, White Plains, and Henry R. Simon for respondent and third-party plaintiff-respondent. Deegan & Deegan, L. L. P., Hempstead (Diane K. Farrell and James V. Deegan of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
A school bus being operated in reverse by a coemployee struck and severely injured plaintiff Concetta Scarangella, a school bus driver for third-party defendant Huntington Coach Corp., Inc. The accident occurred in Huntington's bus parking yard on September 26, 1988. The vehicle was one of 10 new school buses that defendant Thomas Built Buses, Inc., sold Huntington in 1988. At that time, Thomas offered buyers as an optional safety feature a back-up alarm that would automatically sound when a driver shifted the bus into reverse gear, but Huntington chose not to purchase this optional equipment.
After plaintiff and her husband commenced this action for negligence, breach of warranty and products liability, Thomas made a motion to preclude plaintiff from submitting to the jury her claim that the lack of a back-up alarm was a design defect. In support of its motion, Thomas submitted a memorandum of law and excerpts from the deposition of Huntington's president and chief operating officer, Kevin Clifford.
According to Clifford's deposition testimony, Huntington owned and operated 190 school buses and had 300 employees. Clifford had worked for the company for over 30 years and had been a president of the New York State School Bus Owners Association. Clifford explained that he was aware that the back-up alarms were available but made a considered decision not to purchase them. He opted against the alarm because "it screams" when a bus is put in reverse gear, and he intended to park the buses at a bus yard in the middle of a residential neighborhood where his company had been experiencing problems with neighbors concerning noise pollution. When the buses were being parked in the bus yard, there "had to be a tremendous amount of backing up," and Clifford believed it was unnecessary to equip all 100 buses in the lot with the "screaming" alarms. Instead, Clifford instructed the drivers to be cautious and to use the bus's ordinary horn before backing up.
In response to Thomas's motion, plaintiff proffered no specific evidence. She based her design defect claim entirely on the proposition that, because a school bus driver always has a substantial blind spot when operating the vehicle in reverse, a school bus must invariably be equipped with an automatically engaged back-up alarm. Supreme Court concluded that there was no triable issue of fact on this design defect claim. It thus granted defendant's motion to preclude plaintiff from presenting any evidence on the issue to the jury.
Plaintiff proceeded to trial on the theory that the bus was defectively designed because it did not have proper mirrors. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the Trial Judge directed a verdict for defendant and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed (250 AD2d 664).
Plaintiff did not object to the motion to preclude evidence regarding this design defect claim on the procedural ground that it was being used improperly to obtain a final disposition of the merits of the claim, much like a motion for partial summary judgment. Instead, the response was to address the merits of her design defect claim. Therefore, the propriety of this procedural tactic to effect the result gained in this case is not before us. Thus, the only issue before us is whether, based upon the submissions on the motion to preclude, plaintiff was properly barred from presenting to a jury her claim that the bus was defectively designed by Thomas because it did not incorporate the back-up alarm as standard equipment. Because we conclude that in the procedural context framed by the parties the preclusion was not erroneous as a matter of law, we affirm.
A defectively designed product "`is one which, at the time it leaves the seller's hands, is in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; that is one whose utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce'" (Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 107). A manufacturer can be held liable for selling a defectively designed product because the manufacturer "is in the superior position to discover any design defects and alter the design before making the product available to the public" (id., at 107).
In Voss, we identified seven nonexclusive factors to be considered in balancing the risks created by the product's design against its utility and cost (id., at 109). As relevant here, these include the likelihood that the product will cause injury, the ability of the plaintiff to have avoided injury, the degree of awareness of the product's dangers which reasonably can be attributed to the plaintiff, the usefulness of the product to the consumer as designed as compared to a safer design and the functional and monetary cost of using the alternative design (id.). An additional pertinent factor that may be taken into account is "the likely effects of [liability for failure to adopt] the alternative design on * * * the range of consumer choice among products" (Restatement [Third] of Products Liability § 2, comment f). Where a court, after considering the relevant facts and risk-utility factors, determines that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of a design defect, the claim should not be submitted to the jury (see, Fallon v Hannay & Son, 153 AD2d 95, 99; 1A NY P.JI3d 587).
In Rainbow, plaintiff claimed that a motorcycle without an optional safety feature, side crash bars, was unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff was "an experienced motorcyclist [who] * * * had been a successful motorcycle racer for many years [and] * * * had removed crash bars mounted on a previously owned motorcycle" (Rainbow v Elia Bldg. Co., supra, 79 AD2d, at 291 [emphasis supplied]). The Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint, holding that the buyer "was in the best...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oden v. Bos. Scientific Corp.
...does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce." Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc. , 93 N.Y.2d 655, 659, 695 N.Y.S.2d 520, 522, 717 N.E.2d 679, 681 (1999) (internal quotation omitted). A claim premised upon a defective design theory requires that......
-
Tompkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...make out a prima facie case of design defect, the claim need not be submitted to a jury. See Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 655, 659, 695 N.Y.S.2d 520, 717 N.E.2d 679 (N.Y.1999). Various factors are considered in the utility/risk balancing test, such as: (1) the utility ......
-
Noveck v. Pv Holdings Corp..
...liability to Avis because GM is insulated from liability as a matter of law. Relying on Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 655, 695 N.Y.S.2d 520, 717 N.E.2d 679 (1999), Plaintiff states that GM is shielded from liability because Avis opted to purchase the Trailblazer without......
-
Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp.
...it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner" (emphasis added)). More recently, in Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 655, 695 N.Y.S.2d 520, 717 N.E.2d 679 (1999), the Court of Appeals addressed a plaintiff's claim that the absence, on the product at issue, of an ......
-
Effective communication of warnings in the workplace: avoiding injuries in working with industrial materials.
...is in dust form). (173.) See O'Reilly, supra note 84, at 98. (174.) See id. at 98-99; see also Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 679, 682-83 (N.Y. 1999) (stating that the manufacturer of the product, a bus, was in the best position to determine adequate safety (175.) A fai......
-
Design defects.
...feasible, alternative practical design that would have reduced or prevented plaintiff's harm); Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 679 (N.Y. 1999); Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 450 N.E.2d 204 (N.Y. 1983); Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 577 P.2d 1322, 1326-27 (Or. (1......
-
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman: a new era.
...(138) Id. at 375, 909 N.E.2d at 564, 881 N.Y.S.2d at 642. (139) Id. (140) Id. at 381-82, 909 N.E.2d at 568, 881 N.Y.S.3d at 646. (141) 93 N.Y.2d 655, 717 N.E.2d 679, 695 N.Y.S.2d 520 (142) Passante, 12 N.Y.3d at 380, 909 N.E.2d at 567, 881 N.Y.S.2d at 645 (quoting Scarangella, 93 N.Y.2d at ......
-
Finding middle ground: reconciling the disparate approaches courts have taken in determining liability when a purchaser declines optional safety equipment.
...2800.56, as recognized in Perez v. Michael Weinig, Inc., No. Civ.A. 304CV0448, 2005 WL 1630018 at * 2-* 6 (W.D. La. July 7, 2005). (10) 717 N.E.2d 679, 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). It is easier to accept the "buyer's choice' rationale when the buyer himself is the injured party. When the purc......