93 N.Y.2d 655 (1999)
A manufacturer is not liable for a design defect when a buyer chooses not to purchase an optional safety feature, provided the buyer is knowledgeable about the product, the product is reasonably safe for normal use without the feature, and the buyer is in the best position to assess the risks and benefits of foregoing the feature.
Summary
Concetta Scarangella, a school bus driver, was injured when a bus, lacking an optional back-up alarm, struck her in the bus parking yard. She sued the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, alleging a design defect due to the absence of the alarm. Huntington Coach Corp., the bus purchaser, had declined to purchase the optional alarm due to noise concerns in the residential neighborhood of the bus yard. The New York Court of Appeals held that Thomas Built Buses was not liable because Huntington, a sophisticated buyer, knowingly declined the optional safety feature, making them responsible for assessing the risk in their specific operational context. This case clarifies when the responsibility for optional safety features shifts from the manufacturer to the purchaser.
Facts
Huntington Coach Corp. purchased ten school buses from Thomas Built Buses, declining the optional back-up alarm. Kevin Clifford, Huntington’s president, was aware of the alarm but opted against it due to noise concerns in the residential neighborhood where the buses were parked. Huntington instructed drivers to use the regular horn when backing up. Scarangella, a Huntington bus driver, was injured in the bus yard by a bus operating in reverse without the alarm.
Procedural History
Scarangella sued Thomas Built Buses for negligence, breach of warranty, and products liability, claiming a design defect. Thomas moved to preclude evidence regarding the back-up alarm design defect. The Supreme Court granted the motion. Scarangella proceeded to trial on a mirror defect theory, where the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the preclusion of evidence related to the back-up alarm.
Issue(s)
Whether a school bus manufacturer is liable for a design defect when the purchaser of the bus, a sophisticated entity, knowingly declined to purchase an optional back-up alarm, and an accident subsequently occurred due to the absence of that alarm.
Holding
No, because Huntington, as a sophisticated buyer, was in the best position to assess the risks and benefits of forgoing the optional back-up alarm, given their specific operational circumstances and knowledge of the product’s use.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied a risk-utility balancing test, considering factors such as the likelihood of injury, the plaintiff’s ability to avoid injury, awareness of the product’s dangers, and the usefulness of the product with and without the safety feature. The Court relied on Biss v Tenneco, Inc. and Rainbow v Elia Bldg. Co., which held that a manufacturer is not liable when a knowledgeable buyer rejects an optional safety feature. The court distinguished Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, where the manufacturer attempted to shift the entire safety burden to the buyer through boilerplate language, without offering a safer machine configuration. The Court articulated a three-factor test: (1) the buyer is knowledgeable and aware of the safety feature; (2) the product is reasonably safe for normal use without the feature; and (3) the buyer is in a superior position to balance the risks and benefits. In this case, Huntington was a sophisticated buyer, the buses were primarily used in the yard (a controlled environment), and Huntington was best positioned to weigh the noise concerns against the safety benefits. The Court noted that Scarangella failed to provide evidence negating these factors or demonstrating other relevant design defect considerations. The Court stated, “If knowledge of available safety options is brought home to the purchaser, the duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting those appropriate to the intended use rests upon him. He is the party in the best position to exercise an intelligent judgment to make the trade-off between cost and function, and it is he who should bear the responsibility if the decision on optional safety equipment presents an unreasonable risk to users”.