Barclay v. Techno-Design, Inc.

129 A.D.3d 1177

10 N.Y.S.3d 665

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04708

Robert John BARCLAY Jr., Respondent

v.TECHNO–DESIGN, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 4, 2015.

Burke, Scolamiero, Mortati and Hurd, LLP, Albany (Melissa J. Smallacombe of counsel), for appellant.

Tuzinski, Cavalier & Gilchrist, PC, Albany (Jonathan B. Tingley of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN Jr., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

LYNCH, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Giardino, J.), entered May 1, 2014 in Fulton County, which partially denied a motion by defendant Techno–Design Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiff, who was employed as a maintenance worker for Codino's Food, Inc., was injured when his arm became entangled in the gears of a ravioli machine. The machine, manufactured by defendant Techno–Design, Inc. (hereinafter defendant), was designed to produce 10,000 pounds of ravioli in an hour and, pertinent here, was equipped with adjustable components to allow for the production of various types and sizes of pasta and with several nozzles that filled the pasta with cheese. The machine was designed with three areas to access its interior workings, including a side door that could be opened to remove the components and nozzles for adjustments and to be cleaned. Unlike the two other access areas, the side door did not have an interlock device that would automatically shut the machine down once it was opened. In part, this was because the maintenance mechanics were occasionally required to watch the machine as it was operating in order to troubleshoot issues as they arose.

In February 2008, plaintiff reached into the side access door to adjust one of the cheese nozzles. Although this task required him to reach six inches past a visible, moving gear into the machine and blindly twist one of the nozzles with an allen wrench, he did not shut the machine off nor did he use the access area at the rear of the machine that would have permitted him to see and adjust any of the nozzles easily. Within one minute of reaching into the machine, his jacket sleeve became caught in the gear and his arm was pulled in, causing serious and disfiguring injuries. In March 2010, plaintiff commenced this negligence action sounding in products liability against, among another, defendant and, following joinder of issue, defendant commenced a third-party action against Codino's Food.¹ Thereafter, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims. Supreme Court partially denied the motion, finding that there were questions of fact precluding summary dismissal of all but plaintiff's claim that defendant defectively manufactured the ravioli machine. This appeal ensued.

Generally, and as relevant here, a person injured by an allegedly defective product may assert a claim against the manufacturer of a product based on negligence or strict products liability (see Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 106, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 [1983] ). The injured party may claim that the product is defective either because there was a mistake in the manufacturing process, an improper design, or the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings with regard to the use of the product (see Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 237, 677 N.Y.S.2d 764, 700 N.E.2d 303 [1998] ; Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d at 107, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 ; Gray v. R.L. Best Co., 78 A.D.3d 1346, 1348–1349, 910 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2010] ). Here, the issues presented are limited to whether the ravioli machine was defectively designed and the adequacy of defendant's warnings.

Liability for a defectively designed product “attaches when the product, as designed, presents an unreasonable risk of harm to the user” (Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d at 107, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 ). A successful cause of action for defective design exists where a plaintiff is able to establish “that the manufacturer breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury” (id.;see Fisher v. Multiquip, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 1190, 1193, 949 N.Y.S.2d 214 [2012] ; Steuhl v. Home Therapy Equip., Inc., 51 A.D.3d 1101, 1103, 857 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2008] ). To demonstrate a product was not “reasonably safe,” the injured party must demonstrate both that there was a substantial likelihood of harm and that “it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner” (Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co.,

59 N.Y.2d at 108, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 ). A claim may be defeated where a defendant demonstrates that the product's “utility outweighs its risks [because] the product has been designed so that the risks are reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the product's inherent usefulness at an acceptable cost” (id. ). This “risk-utility analysis” requires consideration of “ ‘(1) the product's utility to the public as a whole, (2) its utility to the individual user, (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury, (4) the availability of a safer design, (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced, (6) the degree of awareness of the product's potential danger that can reasonably be attributed to the injured user, and (7) the manufacturer's ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes' ” (Hall v. Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 939 N.Y.S.2d 604 [2012], quoting Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248, 257, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995] ). Generally, the risk/utility analysis presents a factual question for a jury (see Hoover v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 23 N.Y.3d 41, 54, 988 N.Y.S.2d 543, 11 N.E.3d 693 [2014] ; Fisher v. Multiquip, Inc., 96 A.D.3d at 1194, 949 N.Y.S.2d 214 ; Steuhl v. Home Therapy Equip., Inc., 51 A.D.3d at 1104, 857 N.Y.S.2d 335 ).

Here, defendant's submissions included an affidavit by Ruben Diaz, the designer of the ravioli machine. According to Diaz, he designed the machine with three emergency switches, one at each side and one at the back that could immediately shut the machine down. Further, he explained that he included interlocking switches that automatically shut the machine down at the access area located at the back of the machine, used to adjust the cheese nozzles, and at the front access area, which could be opened to adjust the dough. Diaz recalled that when he delivered the machine to plaintiff's employer, he explained that the appropriate way to adjust the cheese nozzles was to access them from the back, not the door at the side of the machine.² The side access, he explained, was intended to be used by the operators to remove parts for cleaning and to observe the machine as it was running. Diaz explained that, because an interlock device would prevent such observation, he did not include it on the side access door. According to Diaz, there were no federal or state safety regulations applicable to the design of the ravioli machine, he had never been informed that anyone had been injured on any similarly designed machine and it was reasonably safe as designed.

In our view, defendant's submissions were sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff “to present competent proof that ... there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner” (Fisher v. Multiquip, Inc., 96 A.D.3d at 1194, 949 N.Y.S.2d 214 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Preston v. Peter Luger Enters., Inc., 51 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 858 N.Y.S.2d 828 [2008] ; Warnke v. Warner–Lambert Co., 21 A.D.3d 654, 656, 799 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2005] ). To this end, plaintiff submitted an affidavit by Harold Ehrlich, an engineer with experience in industrial design and manufacturing. Ehrlich explained that because the side door does not prevent—but instead invites—access to the parts of the machine, the designer should have anticipated that a person might reach into the machine as it was running. Further, even if installing an interlocking switch was not feasible, Ehrlich opined that it was...