Micallef v. Miehle Co., 39 N.Y.2d 376 (1976)
A manufacturer has a duty to design products so as to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to foreseeable users, even when the danger is patent, thus eliminating the previous ‘patent-danger’ rule.
Summary
Paul Micallef, a printing press operator, was injured while trying to remove a blemish (“hickie”) from a printing plate while the machine was running, a common practice in the industry. He sued the manufacturer, Miehle Co., alleging negligent design because the machine lacked safety guards. The trial court initially set aside a jury verdict for the plaintiff but later granted a new trial. The Appellate Division reversed, citing the patent danger rule. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, explicitly abandoning the patent danger rule, holding that a manufacturer has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid unreasonable risks of harm, regardless of whether the danger is obvious. The case was remanded for a new trial.
Facts
Paul Micallef worked as a printing press operator at Lincoln Graphic Arts, operating a large photo-offset press manufactured by Miehle Co.
While operating the press, Micallef noticed a blemish on the printing plate, known as a “hickie.”
He attempted to remove the hickie while the machine was running, a common industry practice known as “chasing the hickie.”
His hand was drawn into the nip point between the plate cylinder and an ink-form roller, causing injury.
The machine lacked safety guards to prevent such accidents.
Micallef was aware of the danger, but stopping the machine would cause significant delays and reduce its efficiency.
The manufacturer’s representatives observed the machine in operation and knew how employees chased hickies.
Procedural History
Micallef sued Miehle Co. for negligent design and breach of implied warranty.
The jury found Miehle Co. negligent, but also found Micallef contributorily negligent, barring recovery on that ground.
The jury returned a verdict for Micallef on the breach of warranty claim.
The trial court initially set aside the verdict, relying on an intervening Court of Appeals decision regarding contributory negligence in strict products liability cases.
The trial court then granted a new trial on all issues in the interest of justice due to potential jury confusion.
Miehle Co. appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the jury verdict on negligence (finding contributory negligence a bar) and directing judgment for the defendant on the warranty cause of action, relying on the patent danger rule of Campo v. Scofield.
Micallef appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the “patent danger” rule, as articulated in Campo v. Scofield, remains valid in New York, precluding manufacturer liability for injuries caused by patently dangerous designs.
Holding
No, because the patent danger rule is no longer valid. A manufacturer is obligated to exercise reasonable care in the design of its products to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to anyone likely to be exposed to the danger when the product is used in its intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals explicitly abandoned the patent danger rule established in Campo v. Scofield.
The court reasoned that the patent danger rule’s rigidity produced harsh results because it is difficult for users to fully perceive the scope of danger in manufactured goods.
The court highlighted advancements in technology, noting that products are often complex and their defects are difficult for consumers to detect.
The court stated that manufacturers are in the best position to recognize and cure defects, promoting public interest by holding them responsible.
The court adopted a standard of “reasonable care,” requiring manufacturers to design products to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to foreseeable users.
“What constitutes ‘reasonable care’ will, of course, vary with the surrounding circumstances and will involve ‘a balancing of the likelihood of harm, and the gravity of harm if it happens, against the burden of the precaution which would be effective to avoid the harm.’”
The court noted that the obviousness of the danger is still relevant to the issue of whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care.
Regarding the breach of implied warranty claim, the court noted that such claims are more correctly treated under the theory of strict products liability. The court declined to reconsider its prior holding on strict products liability from Codling v. Paglia. Judge Fuchsberg and Judge Cooke expressed a preference for adopting Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted a new trial.