# Bolm v. Triumph Corp.

> New York Court of Appeals · November 21, 1973 · 33 N.Y.2d 151

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5528379

## Case

- **Full name:** David A. Bolm v. Triumph Corporation
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 21, 1973
- **Citations:** 33 N.Y.2d 151; 350 N.Y.S.2d 644; 305 N.E.2d 769; 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 924
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Jones
- **Judges:** Burke, Jones
- **Cited by:** 98 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by Merced v. Auto Pak Co., 533 F.2d 71 (1976).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5528379

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- describing “standards for imposing liability for . . . design defects” as derived from “general negligence principles”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5528379. Public record. Not legal advice.