holding that a manufacturer can be held liable in negligence “for defects in design which do not cause accidents but do enhance or aggravate injuries”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a manufacturer can be held liable in negligence “for defects in design which do not cause accidents but do enhance or aggravate injuries”
- discussing precedent holding “that injuries resulting from a latent defect in design which, to the reasonably prudent manufacturer, creates a foreseeable risk of harm should be actionable” (emphasis added)
- imposing liability on manufacturers for design defects which enhance or aggravate injuries because “it is the manufacturer who is solely in a position to prevent injuries from latent defects”
- application for writ of error refused by S.Ct., there being no reversible error
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Merced v. Auto Pak Co., 533 F.2d 71 (1976)
We read Judge Tyler’s decision setting aside the verdict as based primarily on what was in his view a lack of evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the defects, and the dangers created by the defects, were not known to Merced, or discoverable by him through “the exercise of reasonable care,” see Bolm v. Triumph Corp., supra. While all the evidence on the matter may indicate that the defects were…
The opinion
Jones, J.
(dissenting). I am in entire agreement with the rest of the court as to the liability of a manufacturer for design defects which, while not the cause of an accident, do aggravate the damages sustained, under theories both of negligence and strict products liability. On the record in this case, however, I would conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff user of the motorcycle by the exercise of reasonable care would have both discovered the defective design of the metal luggage rack (perilously positioned as it was, directly in front of him and between his legs as he rode) and as well inescapably have perceived the danger incident to its design and location.
I would, therefore, reverse the order of the Appellate Division and reinstate the order of Special Term granting defendants’ motion and dismissing the complaint.
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Breitel, Gabrielli and Wachtler concur with Judge Burke ; Judge Jones dissents and votes to reverse in a separate opinion in which Judge Jasen concurs.
Order affirmed, without costs. Question certified answered in the affirmative.