New York Law Review

Tag: Substantial Alteration

  • Amatulli v. Seaspray Sharkline, Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 533 (1991): Manufacturer Liability for Altered Products

    Amatulli v. Seaspray Sharkline, Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 533 (1991)

    A manufacturer is not liable for injuries resulting from substantial alterations or modifications to its product by a third party that render the product defective or unsafe, particularly when the product is used in a manner not intended or reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer.

    Summary

    Vincent Amatulli, Jr. sustained injuries diving into an above-ground swimming pool that had been improperly installed partially in the ground. He sued the manufacturer, distributor, and homeowners. The New York Court of Appeals held that the manufacturer, Seaspray Sharkline, Inc., was not liable because the in-ground installation was a substantial alteration that created a new potential danger. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the homeowners and distributor, finding triable issues of fact as to their negligence in the installation. This case highlights the limits of manufacturer liability when products are significantly altered after sale.

    Facts

    Seaspray Sharkline, Inc. manufactured an above-ground swimming pool designed for recreational swimming. The pool came with explicit warnings against diving and instructions for above-ground installation. The Susis purchased the pool through Brothers Three, Inc., and installed it with two feet of the pool sunk into the ground, with a deck built around it. This created the appearance of an in-ground pool. Vincent Amatulli, Jr., an experienced swimmer, dove headfirst into the pool, misjudged the depth, and sustained serious injuries. He was aware the pool appeared shallow around the sides, but thought it sloped downward towards the center.

    Procedural History

    Amatulli and his mother sued the Susis (pool owners), Seaspray (manufacturer), Brothers Three (distributor), and Delhi Construction Corp (incorrectly believed to be the installer). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Seaspray, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against it. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision and also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Susis and Brothers Three. The plaintiffs, Susis, and Brothers Three appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Seaspray, the manufacturer, is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under a theory of strict products liability, given that the pool was installed in a manner contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions and warnings.
    2. Whether the conduct of Vincent Amatulli, Jr., in diving headfirst into a pool he knew or should have known was shallow, constitutes the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thus absolving the Susis and Brothers Three of liability.

    Holding

    1. No, because the in-ground installation constituted a substantial alteration of the product, creating a new potential danger not attributable to the manufacturer’s original design or warnings.
    2. No, because factual issues exist as to whether the in-ground installation, directed by the Susis and advised by Brothers Three, contributed to the illusion of sufficient depth for diving, precluding a determination that Amatulli’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries as a matter of law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that Seaspray designed and sold a safe product for its intended use as an above-ground pool, providing clear warnings against diving. The pool’s in-ground installation, contrary to Seaspray’s instructions, constituted a substantial alteration. “Installing the pool in the ground and surrounding it with a deck transformed its configuration in such manner as to obscure its four-foot depth, which would have been readily apparent as a warning against diving had the pool been installed above ground.” This alteration created a new potential danger, absolving Seaspray of liability. The court rejected the argument that Seaspray should have foreseen and warned against in-ground installation, finding the expert’s assertions about industry knowledge conclusory and unsupported. Regarding the Susis and Brothers Three, the court found triable issues of fact as to whether their actions in installing the pool in-ground contributed to the illusion of depth, making it inappropriate to conclude that Amatulli’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court distinguished this case from prior cases where the plaintiff’s conduct was deemed the sole proximate cause as a matter of law, emphasizing the factual dispute over the misleading appearance of the pool’s depth. As the court noted, summary judgment is inappropriate when “ ‘ “only one [legal] conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” ’ ”.

  • Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471 (1980): Manufacturer Liability After Product Modification

    Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 471 (1980)

    A manufacturer is not liable under strict products liability or negligence when a product is substantially altered after it leaves the manufacturer’s control, and that alteration is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

    Summary

    Gerald Robinson, a plastic molding machine operator, was injured when his hand was caught in a machine manufactured by Reed-Prentice. His employer, Plastic Jewel, had modified the machine by cutting a hole in the safety gate to accommodate its production process. Robinson sued Reed-Prentice, alleging defective design. The New York Court of Appeals reversed a judgment in favor of Robinson, holding that Reed-Prentice was not liable because Plastic Jewel’s modification substantially altered the machine and was the proximate cause of the injury. The court emphasized that a manufacturer’s responsibility is limited to the condition of the product when it leaves their control, and they are not responsible for subsequent alterations that render a safe product dangerous. The court stated that imposing liability in this scenario would expand manufacturer’s duty beyond reasonable bounds.

    Facts

    Reed-Prentice manufactured a plastic molding machine and sold it to Plastic Jewel in 1965. The machine included a safety gate with interlocks to prevent operation when the gate was open, complying with state safety regulations. Plastic Jewel modified the machine by cutting a large hole in the Plexiglas portion of the safety gate to allow for continuous molding of beads on a nylon cord. Gerald Robinson, an employee of Plastic Jewel, was injured when his hand went through the hole and was caught in the machine’s molding area.

    Procedural History

    Robinson sued Reed-Prentice, who then impleaded Plastic Jewel. The case was submitted to the jury on strict products liability and negligence theories. The jury found in favor of Robinson, apportioning 40% liability to Reed-Prentice and 60% to Plastic Jewel. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial on damages unless Robinson stipulated to a reduced verdict, which he did. Reed-Prentice and Plastic Jewel appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a manufacturer can be held liable under strict products liability or negligence when a product is substantially modified by a third party after it leaves the manufacturer’s control, and the modification is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

    Holding

    No, because a manufacturer’s duty is limited to designing and producing a product that is safe when it leaves their control. Substantial modifications by a third party that render a safe product defective are not the manufacturer’s responsibility.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that a manufacturer’s duty is to design and produce a safe product at the time of sale. While manufacturers must consider foreseeable uses (and misuses) of a product in their design, they are not required to create products impossible to abuse or whose safety features cannot be circumvented. The court stated that imposing liability for modifications by third parties would expand the scope of a manufacturer’s duty beyond reasonable bounds. The court emphasized that the safety gate, as originally designed, would have prevented the accident. Plastic Jewel’s modification, not a defect in the original design, was the proximate cause of Robinson’s injuries.

    The court distinguished between defects existing at the time of manufacture and subsequent alterations. Quoting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, the court noted that a product is defective if, at the time it leaves the seller’s hands, it is “in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.” Because the machine was safe when it left Reed-Prentice, they could not be held liable.

    The court acknowledged the hardship for the injured plaintiff, who might be barred from suing his employer due to workers’ compensation laws. However, this did not justify imposing an unreasonable duty on manufacturers. The court concluded that “where the product is marketed in a condition safe for the purposes for which it is intended or could reasonably be intended, the manufacturer has satisfied its duty.”