You are here: / / THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY...
,

THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN A SAFETY FEATURE IS AVAILABLE BUT THE BUYER CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE IT, MAY BE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE BUYER IS A RENTAL BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT’S AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S CONTRARY RULING REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) the so-called Scarangella exception may apply where the manufacturer sells its product to a rental business; and (2) the jury instruction misstated the law concerning a manufacturer’s liability where its product is sold to a rental business. The Scarangella case carved out an exception to strict products liability which may apply when the manufacturer has made a safety feature optional and the buyer chooses not to purchase it. Here the plaintiff was operating a Bodcat loader when he was crushed by a small tree which came into the cab. Bobcat sells a cab enclosure (“door kit”) which may have deflected the tree. The rental company, Taylor, which purchased the Bobcat and rented it to plaintiff, did not outfit the rented Bobcat with the door kit. The trial court held that the Scarangella exception is never available to a manufacturer where the product is sold to a rental company. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held the Scarangella exception can be available where a rental business is the purchaser, depending upon the evidence:

[In Scarangella] we held that a product is not defective — and a manufacturer or seller is not strictly liable for a design defect based upon a claim that optional safety equipment should have been a standard feature — when the following three conditions are met: “(1) the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available; (2) there exist normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional equipment; and (3) the buyer is in a position, given the range of uses of the product, to balance the benefits and the risks of not having the safety device in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer’s use of the product” … . When these elements are present, “the buyer, not the manufacturer, is in the superior position to make the risk-utility assessment, and a well-considered decision by the buyer to dispense with the optional safety equipment will excuse the manufacturer from liability” … . * * *

Having deemed Scarangella to be wholly inapplicable, neither the trial court nor the Appellate Division examined whether Bobcat raised a triable question of fact warranting a Scarangella charge. … For purposes of resolution of this appeal, it is sufficient to observe as a matter of law, based on the evidence presented at this trial, that Bobcat was not entitled to a directed verdict in its favor on the Scarangella exception. Whether a Scarangella instruction will be appropriate on retrial is a matter for the trial court to determine based on the evidence presented at that time.  Fasolas v Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03657, CtApp 5-9-19

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH RAISES FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, THE BUILDING IS LEASED TO A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH PROVIDES DIALYSIS; THE LEASED BUILDING, THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAX PURSUANT TO RPTL 420-A (CT APP).
APPELLANTS IMPROPERLY DEDUCTED ROYALTY PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN AFFILIATE CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT TO NEW YORK FRANCHISE TAXES (CT APP).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST NYC ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM AN UNEQUAL AND DISCRIMINATORY PROPERTY TAX SCHEME (CT APP).
Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A PAROLEE’S EMPTY CAR WAS LAWFUL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEARCH WAS DONE BY A POLICE OFFICER, NOT A PAROLE OFFICER.
NYC ZONING ORDINANCES CONCERNING ADULT BOOKSTORES AND CLUBS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ENFORCEABLE.
DEFENDANT’S FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE CONCEALED CARRY STATUTE AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF HIS INDICTMENT (A PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUST PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S INDICTMENT) SURVIVED HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER APPLIED FOR A FIREMARM LICENSE, HE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE STATUTE BASED ON HIS CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE CHALLENGED PORTION OF THE STATUTE IS SEVERABLE FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION RENDERED THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FACIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY (CT APP).

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

PLAINTIFF-TENANT IS DISABLED BY DEPRESSION, DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S REFUSAL... JURY NOTE FOUND IN THE COURT FILE BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS, AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION...