Bolm v. Triumph Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 151 (1973)

In a negligence action, evidence sufficient to present jury questions on negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause is enough to defeat a motion for a directed verdict.

Summary

This case concerns a plaintiff who was injured by a spring mechanism on a machine. The court held that the evidence presented jury questions on negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause, thus affirming the lower court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court emphasized the presence of evidence indicating a design flaw, potential dangers associated with the machine’s components, and the feasibility of implementing a safer design. Additionally, the court found no error in the handling of the contributory negligence issue, concluding that the evidence supported a finding that the plaintiff was unaware of the danger.

Facts

The plaintiff was injured by a spring mechanism on a machine manufactured by Triumph Corp. The machine’s seat was held in place by a cotter pin. Evidence suggested that the cotter pin could come out without the operator’s knowledge. If the spring mechanism failed to elevate the seat, manual lifting was required. With the cotter pin removed, the seat could be detached. Dirt accumulation could impede the spring mechanism’s movement. Without the seat as a restraint, the spring posed a danger. A safer, positive restraint could have been designed and implemented at a relatively low cost.

Procedural History

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to present jury questions on negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause regarding the design of the machine.

2. Whether the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

Holding

1. Yes, because there was evidence from which the jury could have found that there was no design mechanism to hold the seat other than a cotter pin, that the cotter pin could come out without the operator being aware of it, that with the seat removed and no other restraint the spring was an instrument of danger, and that a positive restraint could have been designed and applied to the seat with relatively little cost.

2. Yes, because there was evidence that the plaintiff was unaware of the presence of the spring or of its pressure and that when the seat was removed it could only be seen if one leaned back; contributory negligence is a jury question in all but the clearest cases.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the evidence was sufficient to present jury questions on negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause. The court highlighted the absence of a reliable design mechanism beyond the cotter pin, the potential for the cotter pin to dislodge unnoticed, and the dangers associated with the unrestrained spring mechanism. The court also noted that a safer design was feasible at a reasonable cost. These factors, taken together, allowed the jury to reasonably find that the defendant was negligent in the design of the machine. Regarding contributory negligence, the court noted evidence that the plaintiff was unaware of the danger posed by the spring and that the spring was not easily visible. Quoting Wartels v County Asphalt, 29 NY2d 372, the court reiterated that contributory negligence is generally a jury question unless the case is exceptionally clear. The court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division.