You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT ...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE DEVICE AND WHETHER WARNINGS WERE ADEQUATE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact whether the automobile lift was defectively designed and whether there were inadequate warnings about its use. When the lift was originally shipped, there was a plastic cover over an opening which exposed the mechanism. The plastic cover was inexplicably missing. Two of plaintiff's fingers were partially amputated when plaintiff put his hand inside the hole. Although the manufacturer demonstrated the product was safe with the cover in place, plaintiff raised questions of fact in opposition, including a question whether the lift was intended to be used without the cover:

Manufacturers may be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their products “because of a mistake in the manufacturing process, because of defective design or because of inadequate warnings regarding use of the product” … . Furthermore, “[a] manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product[s] of which it knew or should have known” … .

Here, the manufacturer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged products liability based upon a design defect. The manufacturer demonstrated that the lift was shipped with a plastic cover over the hole in the lift but the cover had been removed by the time of the accident … . The manufacturer further demonstrated, prima facie, that, if the cover were in place, it would have prevented the plaintiff from placing his hand or other body parts inside the lift while the lift was in operation … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the lift was defective at the time it was manufactured and sold, or whether a post-sale modification of the product rendered the otherwise safe product defective, and the modification was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries … . Among other things, the plaintiff raised a triable issue as to whether the lift was intended to be used without the plastic cover in place … .

With respect to the plaintiff's inadequate warning claim, the manufacturer failed to establish, prima facie, that it had adequately warned users of the hazards posed by operating the lift without the cover in place or, more broadly, the dangers of placing a hand or other body part in the hole while operating the lift … . Singh v Gemini Auto Lifts, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01826, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE DEVICE AND WHETHER WARNINGS WERE ADEQUATE)

You might also like
‘ANDERS’ BRIEF DEFICIENT; NEW COUNSEL ASSIGNED FOR THE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY RULING; THE MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO SET A LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF AN LLC WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE FIRST DEGREE IS NOT A REGISTERABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; A SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION IS APPEALABLE WHEN THE ERROR IS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TO CHALLENGE THE BANK’S STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE DEFENDANT MUST ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; MERELY DENYING THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER’S CAUSES OF ACTION (SEEKING THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION) AGAINST THE BUYERS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY USING A DIFFERENT BROKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE QUANTUM MERUIT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT MADE OUT (SECOND DEPT).

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

HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS AFTER... RIGHT TO PARTITION IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE...