TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baran v. Curtiss Wright Corp.

Clara J. Baran v. Curtiss Wright Corporation

Baran v. Curtiss Wright Corp., 115 A.D.2d 252 (1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 15, 1985
Citations
115 A.D.2d 252495 N.Y.S.2d 8541985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54506

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff brought this action against the former owner of a table saw to recover damages for injuries she received while operating the saw for her employer. Defendant moved for summary judgment in its favor and Special Term denied the motion. We reverse and dismiss the complaint.

In support of the motion, defendant submitted uncontroverted proof that in 1946 at the end of World War II it sold two table saws to plaintiff’s employer as surplus equipment, and that it was not in the business of manufacturing or selling table saws. When sold, the two saws were in excellent condition. One was equipped with a shell guard and the other was not. Shortly after he purchased the saws and before they were put into use, the purchaser replaced the missing guard on one saw. Years later, in 1974, the purchaser modified the saws by placing a hinge table over the saw blades necessitating the removal of the shell guards. Plaintiff was injured when her hand came into contact with the blade of one of the saws.

The cause of action for breach of warranty should have been dismissed as time barred (Doyle v Happy Tumbler Wash-O-Mat, 90 AD2d 366 ). The cause of action alleging strict products liability should also have been dismissed. We need not decide whether such liability extends to an occasional seller not engaged in the business of distributing the product (see, Restatement [Second] of Torts § 402 A comment f, at 350). In any event, a seller is not responsible in products liability where, as here, the purchaser makes a substantial modifica *253 tion which causes the injury (Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div., 49 NY2d 471 ). Finally, the negligence cause of action should have been dismissed because the fact that a guard was missing at the time of sale was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J.—summary. judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1986: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Copp v. Corning Glass Works114 A.D.2d 144 (1986)

Most recent

  1. Copp v. Corning Glass Works114 A.D.2d 144 (1986)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 403 N.E.2d 440 (N.Y. 1980) 312
Doyle v. Happy Tumbler Wash-O-Mat, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 366 (1982) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list