You are here: / / A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary...
,

A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant manufacturer of a post-hole digger did not demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the product liability suit because a plastic safety shield (which would have prevented the injury) had been removed by a third party after the sale (the “substantial modification” defense).  There was evidence that the plastic shield was defective in that it wore out prematurely:

If the defendant establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on substantial modification, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating “the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” …. . The plaintiff may overcome a substantial modification defense by demonstrating that the post-sale modification did not render a “safe product defective” because the product incorporated a defectively designed safety feature at the time of sale … . In other words, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue of fact whether the safety feature “was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury” … . * * *

…[I]f a plaintiff establishes the existence of material issues of fact concerning the defective design of a safety feature, the defendant will not automatically prevail on summary judgment simply because that safety feature was modified post sale. The substantial modification defense is intended to insulate manufacturers and others in the distribution chain from liability for injuries that would never have arisen but for the post-sale modification of a safety feature on an otherwise safe product. [It] does not, however, mandate summary disposal of cases where the plaintiff raises a colorable claim that the product was dangerous because of a defectively designed safety feature and notwithstanding the modification by the third party. We agree with the Appellate Division that, on this record, plaintiff established the existence of material issues of fact sufficient to overcome defendants’ substantial modification defense. Hoover v New Holland N Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02215, CtApp 4-1-14

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE’S CASE TO PROVE INTENT.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.
Harmless Error Rule Should Not Have Been Applied to Guilty Plea
Under the Facts, the Judge’s Failure to Mention the Imposition of Post-Release Supervision as Part of the Sentence at the Time of the Plea Was an Error that Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Made)
IN AWARDING A COUNTY CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE BUS COMPANY, THE COUNTY’S DEVIATION FROM A FORMULA DESCRIBED IN ITS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
CONTEMPT ORDER IN A CIVIL MATTER INVOLVING THE SAME FUNDS DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF STEALING IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER IS NOT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE, THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT OUTWEIGHED ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.
HERE THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE WHEN HE STABBED THE VICTIM WITH A PEN KNIFE; THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE BUT DID NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THAT ISSUE; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, UPHOLDING THE RULE THAT THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF JUSTIFICATION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (CT APP).
Lump Sum Payments for Pending Workers’ Compensation Claims Made by Municipalities Choosing to Withdraw from a Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund Must Be Discounted to Present Value

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Owners of Land Slated for Development Had Standing to Challenge Procedures Used... Inconsistent Responses to Special-Verdict Interrogatories Required Resubmission...