Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1983 |
| Citation | 449 N.E.2d 1264,59 N.Y.2d 628,463 N.Y.S.2d 186 |
| Parties | , 449 N.E.2d 1264 Dorothy STECKAL, Appellant, v. HAUGHTON ELEVATOR CO., INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 88 A.D.2d 794, 450 N.Y.S.2d 643, should be affirmed with costs.
Although the words "strictly liable" appear in plaintiff's complaint, there was no request to charge on such a theory nor was plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict made on any such ground. Moreover, there is no proof that the elevator was defective when it left defendants' hands, an essential of a strict liability cause of action. That defendants both supplied the elevator and serviced it after installation would not impose upon them strict liability for a defect which developed after installation was completed.
Nor is plaintiff's case helped by the 1975 amendment to section 2-318 of the Uniform Commercial Code, if its applicability be assumed, there being no evidence in this record that the delivery of the elevator occurred after the effective date of that amendment (Fisher v. Graco, Inc., 81 A.D.2d 209, 211, 440 N.Y.S.2d 380, app. withdrawn 54 N.Y.2d 1027).
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
...it was not reasonably safe (see, Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261, 270, 473 N.Y.S.2d 378, 461 N.E.2d 864; Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co., 59 N.Y.2d 628, 463 N.Y.S.2d 186, 449 N.E.2d 1264; Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 107-108, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204; Robinson v. R......
-
Antone v. General Motors Corp., Buick Motor Div.
...a claim, despite the lack of privity and the presence of a claim for strict products liability (see Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co., 59 N.Y.2d 628, 463 N.Y.S.2d 186, 449 N.E.2d 1264; Martin v. Dierck Equip. Co., 43 N.Y.2d 583, 403 N.Y.S.2d 185, 374 N.E.2d 97; Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-3......
-
Messner v. City of N.Y.
...the existence of a defect at the time that the product left the manufacturer's facility ( see Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co., 59 N.Y.2d 628, 629, 463 N.Y.S.2d 186, 449 N.E.2d 1264). With respect to allegations of a design defect, however, the seminal issue is whether the product, as desig......
-
O'Halloran v. Toledo Scale Co.
...in the family or household of the buyer, the amendment has been held not to apply retroactively. Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co., Inc., 59 N.Y.2d 628, 463 N.Y.S.2d 186, 449 N.E.2d 1264 (1983); Szrana v. Alumo Products Co., Inc., 118 Misc.2d 1008, 462 N.Y.S.2d 156 (Sup.Ct., Erie Co.1983). S......
-
Table of Cases
...1989), §32:64 Stavrou v. Abravos-Vernadakis , P.C., 109 AD2d 676, 486 NYS2d 256 (1st Dept 1985), §6:31 Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co. , 59 N.Y.2d 628, 629 (1983), Form 32:80 Steidel v. County of Nassau , 182 AD2d 809, 582 NYS2d 805 (2d Dept 1992), §33:41 Steiger v. Mason , 125 AD2d 391, 5......
-
Jury Instructions
...Decker Manufacturing Co., supra , 59 N.Y.2d at 107-08; Codling v. Paglia, supra, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973); Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co. , 59 N.Y.2d 628, 629 (1983); Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co. , 49 N.Y.2d 471 (1980)]. If plaintiffs fail to prove this by competent evi......
-
Jury Instructions
...Decker Manufacturing Co., supra , 59 N.Y.2d at 107-08; Codling v. Paglia, supra, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973); Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co. , 59 N.Y.2d 628, 629 (1983); Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co. , 49 N.Y.2d 471 (1980)]. If plaintiffs fail to prove this by competent evi......
-
Jury Instructions
...Decker Manufacturing Co., supra , 59 N.Y.2d at 107-08; Codling v. Paglia, supra, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973); Steckal v. Haughton Elevator Co. , 59 N.Y.2d 628, 629 (1983); Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co. , 49 N.Y.2d 471 (1980)]. If plaintiffs fail to prove this by competent evi......