Sullivan v. J.W. Greer Co., Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 807 (1985): Defining “Special Relationship” for Duty to Warn

Sullivan v. J.W. Greer Co., Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 807 (1985)

A successor corporation’s single service call on a machine is insufficient to establish a “special relationship” with the purchaser, thus precluding a duty to warn about defects, particularly concerning equipment not yet installed or present during the inspection.

Summary

Thomas Sullivan, an employee of Dunkirk Ice Cream Company, was injured by a fan blade while working on an ice cream hardening machine. He sued J.W. Greer Co., Inc. (Greer), the successor to the machine’s manufacturer, alleging negligence for failing to warn of the machine’s dangers. The New York Court of Appeals held that a single service call by Greer was insufficient to establish a “special relationship” with Dunkirk, which is necessary to impose a duty to warn. The Court also found that Greer had no duty to inspect or warn about equipment (the fans) that were not present or installed during its inspection of the ice cream machine.

Facts

J.W. Greer Company manufactured an ice cream hardening machine and sold it to Foremost Dairies in 1962. Dunkirk Ice Cream purchased the machine from Foremost in 1970. After a period of storage, Dunkirk requested J.W. Greer Incorporated (Greer), which had acquired the assets of J.W. Greer Company, to inspect the machine in 1974. During the inspection by Greer’s employee, Francis MacDonald, the cooling fans and the catwalk near the machine were not yet installed or possibly even present. Sullivan was injured in 1976 when a tool he was using struck a fan blade, causing a splinter to hit him in the eye. The fans were manufactured by Joy Manufacturing Company.

Procedural History

Sullivan and his wife sued Greer, asserting claims based on strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Greer on the strict liability and breach of warranty claims but allowed the negligence claim to proceed, based on a purported duty to warn. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the remaining negligence claim, concluding that no “special relationship” existed between Dunkirk and Greer to impose a duty to warn. Sullivan appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a single service call by a successor corporation is sufficient to establish a “special relationship” with the purchaser of a machine, thus creating a duty to warn of potential dangers associated with the machine and related equipment?

Whether Greer had an independent duty to warn Dunkirk about the cooling fans even though they were not present or installed during Greer’s inspection of the ice cream machine?

Holding

No, because a single service call is insufficient to establish the necessary “special relationship” required to impose a duty to warn under the circumstances.

No, because Greer’s arrangement to inspect the ice cream machine did not create a duty to inspect or warn about equipment of another manufacturer that was not present or installed at the time of the inspection.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing the importance of a “special relationship” to impose a duty to warn. Citing Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, the court reiterated that a duty to warn “commonly is imposed because of some special relationship, frequently economic.” The court found that a single service call was insufficient to establish such a relationship. The court referred to the factors identified in Schumacher, such as service contracts, coverage of the machine under a service contract, service of the machine by the successor corporation, and the successor corporation’s knowledge of defects, to determine the existence of sufficient links. The Court stated that these factors were not met in this case. The Court explicitly stated that it did not need to reach the question of whether Greer could be liable for harm caused by the fan. Regarding the independent duty to warn, the Court reasoned that Greer’s inspection arrangement for the ice cream hardening machine could not give rise to a duty to inspect or warn about equipment (the fans) that was not yet installed—or possibly not even present—when Greer made its inspection.