You are here: / / Manufacturers Responsible for Packaging a Product Owed a Duty to Plaintiff...
, ,

Manufacturers Responsible for Packaging a Product Owed a Duty to Plaintiff Injured When the Packaging Failed Under Negligence, Strict Products Liability and Contractual Theories

Plaintiff was injured when the packaging of a product failed. The product was manufactured pursuant to a contract between plaintiff’s employer and one manufacturer, ABS. ABS contracted with a second manufacturer, Keystone, to nickel-plate the product.  Both manufacturers were responsible for aspects of the product’s packaging.  The Fourth Department determined that the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Both owed a duty to plaintiff under negligence and strict products liability theories. In addition, ABS owed a duty to the plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract with plaintiff’s employer. And Keystone owed a contractual duty to the plaintiff as well because, although there was no third-party beneficiary relationship, Keystone had launched an instrument of harm.  Filer v Keystone Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03628, 4th Dept 5-1-15

 

You might also like
AN UNPLEADED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S DETERMINATION DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
NOT ASKING A GRAND JURY TO CONSIDER A CHARGE FOR WHICH SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED DID NOT AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE (WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT OF THE SCAFFOLD OR THE ABSENCE OF RAILINGS.
National Labor Relations Board Had First Crack at Collective Bargaining Agreement Matter Under Preemption Doctrine
ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE OFF HIS HARNESS AND LANYARD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY FROM A FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Successive Photo Arrays Okay/Statement Made Voluntarily After Refusing to Waive Miranda Rights Admissible for Impeachment Purposes
State’s Placement of a Stop Sign and the Resulting Difficulty in Seeing Oncoming Traffic was a Concurrent Cause of the Accident which Was Not Superseded by the Negligence of the Drivers

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

Spectator Watching People Sledding Assumed the Risk of Being Struck Notations Added by Judge to Verdict Sheet to Help Jurors Differentiate the Counts...