Winckel v. Atlantic Rentals & Sales, Inc.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before THOMPSON; PER CURIAM
• Citation: 557 N.Y.S.2d 951,159 A.D.2d 124
• Decision Date: 16 July 1990
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,541 Mary WINCKEL, et al., Appellants, v. ATLANTIC RENTALS & SALES, INC., et al., Respondents. (and a third-party action)

Page 951

557 N.Y.S.2d 951 159 A.D.2d 124, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,541 Mary WINCKEL, et al., Appellants,
v.
ATLANTIC RENTALS & SALES, INC., et al., Respondents.
(and a third-party action) Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department. July 16, 1990.

Page 952

Joel P. Stolowitz, Floral Park, (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, [Marshall D. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for appellants.

Meiselman, Boland, Reilly & Fugazzi, Mineola, (Donald J. Boland, of counsel), for respondent Atlantic Rentals & Sales, Inc.

Sheft & Sweeney, New York City (David J. Fischman, of counsel), for respondents Bud Maron and Murial Maron.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A commercial lessor who introduces a defective product into the marketplace should be subject to the same potential liability that faces the manufacturer or retailer of a defective product. Applying this rule to the present case, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing those of the plaintiffs' claims that were based on the doctrines of strict products liability and breach of warranty, insofar as those claims were asserted against the defendant Atlantic Rentals & Sales, Inc. This defendant, unlike its codefendants, was in the business of renting equipment, and leased an allegedly defective chair. This defendant therefore may be liable, even in the absence of fault, for the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs on account of the alleged defect in the chair.

The plaintiff Mary Winckel is an antiques dealer. On June 8, 1984, she participated in an antiques show that took place at the New York Coliseum. During the course of the exhibition, she sat down on a folding metal chair and the chair collapsed. There was evidence that after the accident, parts of the chair appeared to be bent, and that a metal band underneath the chair was broken in half. She claims to have suffered several injuries as a result of this incident, including a "fracture of the coccyxgeal segment".

The plaintiffs Mary Winckel and Richard Winckel sued the defendant Atlantic Rentals & Sales, Inc. (hereinafter Atlantic), the owner of the chair in question. The first cause of action, which is based on negligence, is not at issue on appeal. The second cause of action seems to sound in breach of warranty, but could also be interpreted as asserting a cause of action based on the doctrine of strict products liability. The third cause of action is based on Mr. Winckel's loss of consortium. The plaintiffs also sued Bud Maron and Murial Maron. Mr. Maron is an officer or employee of Gem Shows, Inc., a corporation in the business of promoting antique shows. The defendant Atlantic brought a third-party action against the third-party defendant Samsonite Corporation (hereinafter Samsonite), the alleged manufacturer of the chair.

The action proceeded to trial on December 5, 1988. The court dismissed the third-party action against Samsonite after the completion of opening statements. After the plaintiffs had presented their case to the jury, the court also dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint insofar as it was asserted against the defendant Atlantic. Later, after Mr. Maron had testified, the court reaffirmed its decision to dismiss the complaint insofar as it was against Atlantic, and also dismissed the complaint insofar as it was against Mr. and Mrs. Maron. Judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. This appeal followed.

The plaintiffs argue that they succeeded in establishing a prima facie case based on theories of breach of implied warranty and strict products liability. In order to establish liability based upon these theories, the plaintiffs were required to prove (1) that the chair in question was not fit to be used as intended, (2) that the defect existed as of the time that it left the defendants' hands, (3) that the plaintiff Mary Winckel used the chair in question as it was intended to be used, (4) that the plaintiff Mary Winckel would not have been able to discover any defect in the chair through the exercise of ordinary care, and (5) that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the accident (see generally, Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622; 2C Warren's NY Negligence, Products Liability § 3.01; 47

Page 953

NY Jur, Products Liability §§ 74-78; 1 PJI 2:141). We believe that the plaintiffs have proved these elements of their cause of action.

While there was no proof of a specific defect in the chair, under certain circumstances a jury may infer that a product was defective solely on the basis of proof that the product did not function as intended. However, if a defendant comes forward with any evidence that the accident was not necessarily attributable to a defect, the plaintiff must then produce direct evidence of a defect (see generally, Halloran v. Virginia Chems., 41 N.Y.2d 386, 388, 393 N.Y.S.2d 341, 361 N.E.2d 991; Putnick v. H.M.C. Assocs., 137 A.D.2d 179, 183, 529 N.Y.S.2d 205; Brandon v. Caterpillar Tractor Corp., 125 A.D.2d 625, 626, 510 N.Y.S.2d 165; Coley v. Michelin Tire Corp., 99 A.D.2d 795, 472 N.Y.S.2d 125; Yager v. Arlen Realty & Dev. Corp., 95 A.D.2d 853, 464 N.Y.S.2d 214; Iadicicco v. Duffy, 60 A.D.2d 905, 401 N.Y.S.2d 557; Tully v. Empire Equip. Corp., 28 A.D.2d 935, 282 N.Y.S.2d 322; 1 Weinberger, New York Products Liability § 20:04). In this case, the defendants failed to offer any cogent reason for the chair's collapse, and the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence.

Based on our review of the facts of this case, we believe that the jury could properly have found that the chair upon which Mary Winckel sat was, in fact, defective, and that it was defective at the time it was delivered by the defendant Atlantic to the New York Coliseum. We also conclude that the jury could have found that Mary Winckel could not have discovered the defect through the exercise of ordinary care, and that she used the chair as it was intended to be used. A prima facie case based on the theories of breach of warranty and strict products liability was therefore established. However, the question remains whether the jury could properly have concluded that these particular defendants are liable for the injuries allegedly caused by this defective product. We find that such liability may be imposed only on the defendant...