New York Law Review

Tag: Optional Safety Feature

  • Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc., 2 N.Y.3d 375 (2004): Optional Safety Features and Product Liability

    Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc., 2 N.Y.3d 375 (2004)

    A manufacturer can be liable for a defectively designed product that lacks an optional safety feature if the product is unreasonably dangerous without it in its normal use, despite the buyer’s knowledge and rejection of the feature.

    Summary

    Samuel Passante was injured while using a dock leveler at work. He sued the manufacturer (Rite-Hite) and seller (Mullen) arguing it was defectively designed by not including a trailer restraint system (Dok-Lok), an optional feature. The New York Court of Appeals held that summary judgment for the seller was inappropriate because the dock leveler posed an unreasonable risk of harm without the restraint system during normal use. This distinguished the case from prior precedent where the buyer’s informed decision to forego a safety feature shielded the manufacturer from liability. The court also reinstated a failure to warn claim, finding the existing warnings inadequate.

    Facts

    Passante, an employee of G&P Fresh Pac, was injured using a Rite-Hite dock leveler sold to G&P by Mullen. The dock leveler lacked a Dok-Lok trailer restraint system, an optional feature. Passante, weighing 140 pounds, had to stand on the leveler’s hinged lip to make it contact the trailer bed; the leveler was designed for a “150 pound walk down.” The trailer driver moved the truck prematurely, causing the lip to collapse and Passante to fall. G&P had declined to purchase the Dok-Lok system, partly due to cost and concerns about driver compliance.

    Procedural History

    Passante sued Rite-Hite, Mullen and G&P. Mullen moved for summary judgment, which Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint against Mullen. After this decision, Mullen moved for summary judgment dismissing Rite-Hite’s cross-claims, and Rite-Hite sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. Supreme Court dismissed Rite-Hite’s cross-claims without prejudice. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order upon plaintiff’s appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a product is defectively designed as a matter of law when it lacks an optional safety feature that the buyer knowingly declined to purchase?

    2. Whether the seller adequately warned users of the dock leveler of the dangers involved in its operation?

    Holding

    1. No, because the manufacturer and seller failed to demonstrate that the dock leveler was not unreasonably dangerous without the optional trailer restraint system during normal use.

    2. No, because there are triable issues of fact as to the sufficiency of the warnings provided concerning the equipment, particularly the danger of remaining on the lip after it engaged the trailer bed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished this case from Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, where a buyer’s informed decision to forego an optional safety feature relieved the manufacturer of liability. Scarangella requires considering whether: (1) the buyer is knowledgeable about the product and aware of the safety feature; (2) there exist normal circumstances where the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the feature; and (3) the buyer can balance the benefits and risks of not having the safety device. Here, while G&P was knowledgeable and aware of the Dok-Lok, the court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the dock leveler was not unreasonably dangerous without the trailer restraint system in its normal use. The Court relied on a Rite-Hite brochure describing the “Danger Zone” and the risk of trailers moving, as well as expert testimony regarding the risk from the collapsing lip. The court also found triable issues as to the adequacy of the warnings. Although a warning sheet was posted, it didn’t warn against remaining on the lip after it engaged the trailer. The court emphasized that “in cases where reasonable minds might disagree as to the extent of plaintiff’s knowledge of the hazard, the question is one for the jury.” The dissent argued that all three Scarangella factors were met, and the dock leveler was safe if used with proper precautions such as confirming the truck was off before use. They warned the decision eviscerated Scarangella, increased costs for manufacturers and distributors, and removed buyer’s options to refuse safety features.

  • Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 655 (1999): Optional Safety Features and Product Design Defect

    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”.