You are here: / / EXPERT AFFIDAVIT RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NAIL GUN WAS DEFECTIVELY...

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NAIL GUN WAS DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact whether a nail gun was defectively designed based upon an affidavit from an expert engineer. The nail gun could be operated in a “bump” mode where the nail is released when the tip of the gun comes into contact with a surface. And the nail gun could be operated by squeezing a trigger. Here the nail gun was in “bump” mode when it came into contact with plaintiff's head and a three-inch nail went into plaintiff's brain:

Plaintiffs' expert opined to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty that the nail gun is defective “because it did not have[,] as a sole means of actuation, a full sequential trip trigger” and instead also provided for the option for a “contact trip” or a bump trigger. The expert explained that the center of gravity of the nail gun causes the operator to maintain a finger on the trigger when lowering the nine-pound gun, as was the case here; that the sequence of the use of the trigger to determine the mode of operation causes operator confusion as to which mode of operation is in use, which he opined happened here based upon the testimony of the employee that he thought the nail gun was in sequential fire mode; that government safety studies he reviewed found a much higher rate of injury when the nail gun was in the bump mode; and that tests he performed and studies he reviewed established that the utility of the bump mode does not outweigh the danger of its use because it is “only 10% faster” than the sequential fire mode … . ” Where, as here, a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis' ” … . Terwilliger v Max Co., Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 02226, 4th Dept 3-25-16

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (EXPERT AFFIDAVIT RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NAIL GUN WAS DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED)/DEFECTIVE DESIGN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NAIL GUN WAS DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED)

You might also like
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ONCE PETITIONER’S PATERNITY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GENETIC TESTING FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY (AOP) PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED BY MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAD BEEN GRANTED.
More Sophisticated DNA Test, Ruling Out the Defendant as the Source of Semen, Was a Proper Basis for Vacating Defendant’s Conviction–Criteria Described
Prosecutorial Misconduct Noted (Conviction Upheld However)
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED CHANGING THE CHILD’S NAME TO A NAME NOT REQUESTED IN FATHER’S PETITION, A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NAME CHANGE IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES; HOWEVER THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH 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

STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE. PROCEDURE USED TO EXCUSE PROSPECTIVE JURORS ON HARDSHIP GROUNDS WAS NOT A MODE...