inadequacy warning in New York

2015Given this obvious danger, and because plaintiff — who was aware of the specific entanglement risk and the appropriate way to avoid the risk — would not have benefitted from a warning, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim based on the inadequacy of the warnings (see Hall v Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 AD3d at 1190-1191 ; Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Frisbee v Cathedral Corp., 283 AD2d 806, 807 [2001]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560, 563 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

2015Given this obvious danger, and because plaintiff — who was aware of the specific entanglement risk and the appropriate way to avoid the risk — would not have benefitted from a warning, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim based on the inadequacy of the warnings (see Hall v Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 AD3d at 1190-1191 ; Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Frisbee v Cathedral Corp., 283 AD2d 806, 807 [2001]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560, 563 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

2022Co. , 183 AD2d 64, 70 ).

2012Co. ( 183 AD2d 64 [1992]) that even where a plaintiff fails to read warnings altogether, there may still be a viable cause of action based on the inadequacy of the warnings themselves, as the sufficiency of warnings is not limited to what is warned but also includes consideration of the intensity of the language used and the prominence of its display (id. at 70).

2015Given this obvious danger, and because plaintiff — who was aware of the specific entanglement risk and the appropriate way to avoid the risk — would not have benefitted from a warning, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim based on the inadequacy of the warnings (see Hall v Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 AD3d at 1190-1191 ; Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Frisbee v Cathedral Corp., 283 AD2d 806, 807 [2001]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560, 563 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

2015Given this obvious danger, and because plaintiff — who was aware of the specific entanglement risk and the appropriate way to avoid the risk — would not have benefitted from a warning, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim based on the inadequacy of the warnings (see Hall v Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 AD3d at 1190-1191 ; Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Frisbee v Cathedral Corp., 283 AD2d 806, 807 [2001]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560, 563 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

2015Finally, given the questions of fact with regard to plaintiff’s defective design claims and because there are questions with regard to whether the ravioli machine was purposefully designed to be used without the side door in place, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on its substantial modification defense (see Hoover v New Holland N. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d at 57-58, 61 ; Lopez v Precision Papers, 67 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]).

2015Finally, given the questions of fact with regard to plaintiff’s defective design claims and because there are questions with regard to whether the ravioli machine was purposefully designed to be used without the side door in place, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on its substantial modification defense (see Hoover v New Holland N. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d at 57-58, 61 ; Lopez v Precision Papers, 67 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]).

2015Given this obvious danger, and because plaintiff — who was aware of the specific entanglement risk and the appropriate way to avoid the risk — would not have benefitted from a warning, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim based on the inadequacy of the warnings (see Hall v Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 AD3d at 1190-1191 ; Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Frisbee v Cathedral Corp., 283 AD2d 806, 807 [2001]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560, 563 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

2015Given this obvious danger, and because plaintiff — who was aware of the specific entanglement risk and the appropriate way to avoid the risk — would not have benefitted from a warning, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim based on the inadequacy of the warnings (see Hall v Husky Farm Equip., Ltd., 92 AD3d at 1190-1191 ; Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Frisbee v Cathedral Corp., 283 AD2d 806, 807 [2001]; Scardefield v Telsmith, Inc., 267 AD2d 560, 563 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

2015Finally, given the questions of fact with regard to plaintiff’s defective design claims and because there are questions with regard to whether the ravioli machine was purposefully designed to be used without the side door in place, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on its substantial modification defense (see Hoover v New Holland N. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d at 57-58, 61 ; Lopez v Precision Papers, 67 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]).

2015Finally, given the questions of fact with regard to plaintiff’s defective design claims and because there are questions with regard to whether the ravioli machine was purposefully designed to be used without the side door in place, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on its substantial modification defense (see Hoover v New Holland N. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d at 57-58, 61 ; Lopez v Precision Papers, 67 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]).

2011Contrary to defendant’s contention, moreover, the admitted failure of plaintiff to read the label on his uniform does not necessarily sever the causal connection between the alleged inadequacy of the warning and the occurrence of the accident (see Vail v Kmart Corp., 25 AD3d 549, 551 ; Johnson v Johnson Chem.

2011Contrary to defendant’s contention, moreover, the admitted failure of plaintiff to read the label on his uniform does not necessarily sever the causal connection between the alleged inadequacy of the warning and the occurrence of the accident (see Vail v KMart Corp., 25 AD3d 549, 551 [2006]; Johnson v Johnson Chem.

2024See Mulhall v Hannafin, 45 AD3d 55, 58 (1st Dept. 2007).

2022"A manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known" ( Liriano v Hobart Corp. , 92 NY2d at 237 ; see Morales v City of New York , 193 AD3d at 927 ). "[E]ven where a plaintiff fails to read warnings altogether, there may still be a viable cause of action based on the inadequacy of the warnings themselves, as the sufficiency of warnings is not limited to what is warned but also includes consideration of the intensity of the language used and the prominence of its display" ( Fredette v Town of Southampton ,

2022"A manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known" ( Liriano v Hobart Corp. , 92 NY2d at 237 ; see Morales v City of New York , 193 AD3d at 927 ). "[E]ven where a plaintiff fails to read warnings altogether, there may still be a viable cause of action based on the inadequacy of the warnings themselves, as the sufficiency of warnings is not limited to what is warned but also includes consideration of the intensity of the language used and the prominence of its display" ( Fredette v Town of Southampton ,

2012Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged inadequacy of warnings regarding the avoidance of hazards and the pre-inspection of riding areas was a competent producing cause of the occurrence (see Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 60 AD3d 1173, 1175-1176 [2009]; Secone v Raymond Corp., 240 AD2d 391, 392 [1997]).

2010Co., 183 AD2d 64, 71 [1992] [plaintiffs admission that she failed to read warning on can of roach spray, which warned users that all flames, pilot lights and burners were to be turned off prior to use, did not defeat plaintiffs right to recover on a theory of failure to warn]; German v Morales, 24 AD3d 246 [2005]; see also Humphrey v Diamant Boart, Inc., 556 F Supp 2d 167, 181 [ED NY 2008] [plaintiffs admission that he did not read the warning label or operating instructions on equipment not dispositive under New York law in connection with failure to warn claim]).

2007To succeed on their failure-to-warn claim, plaintiffs were required to prove that the product did not contain adequate warnings and that the inadequacy of those warnings was the proximate cause of the injuries (Glucksman v Halsey Drug Co., 160 AD2d 305, 307 [1990]).

2005Corp., 248 AD2d 840, 841 [1998], lv dismissed and denied 92 NY2d 868 [1998], quoting Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d 248, 257 [1995]). 8 The inadequacy of a warning may form the basis of a strict products liability cause of action (Frederick v Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 107 AD2d 1063, 1064 [4th Dept 1985]).

2005Corp., 248 AD2d 840, 841 [1998], lv dismissed and denied 92 NY2d 868 [1998], quoting Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d 248, 257 [1995]). 8 The inadequacy of a warning may form the basis of a strict products liability cause of action (Frederick v Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 107 AD2d 1063, 1064 [4th Dept 1985]).

2005Corp., 248 AD2d 840, 841 [1998], lv dismissed and denied 92 NY2d 868 [1998], quoting Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d 248, 257 [1995]). 8 The inadequacy of a warning may form the basis of a strict products liability cause of action (Frederick v Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 107 AD2d 1063, 1064 [4th Dept 1985]).

2005Charette, in order to make out a prima facie case entitling it to dismissal of third-party plaintiff’s strict products liability theory, would have to demonstrate that the gas range, when placed into the stream of commerce, was a reasonably safe product—that is, one whose utility outweighs its risks when the product was designed so that the risks are reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the product’s inherent usefulness at an acceptable cost (see, Voss v Black & Decker, 59 NY2d at 108).

2004We also dismiss plaintiffs products liability claim because the record contains no evidence that the elevator was defective at the time of its 1923 manufacture due to a mistake in manufacturing, an improper design, or the inadequacy of warnings for its use (Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 25 [1985]; compare Potaczala v Fitzsimmons, 171 AD2d 1015, 1016-1017 [1991] [Otis “fail(ed) to show that (its) elevator had been appropriately designed, manufactured and installed consistent with safety standards and the state of the art at the time of manufacture and sale”]).

2004We also dismiss plaintiffs products liability claim because the record contains no evidence that the elevator was defective at the time of its 1923 manufacture due to a mistake in manufacturing, an improper design, or the inadequacy of warnings for its use (Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 25 [1985]; compare Potaczala v Fitzsimmons, 171 AD2d 1015, 1016-1017 [1991] [Otis “fail(ed) to show that (its) elevator had been appropriately designed, manufactured and installed consistent with safety standards and the state of the art at the time of manufacture and sale”]).

1997In Cipollone (supra) the Supreme Court stated that the claim for failure to warn is preempted if the claim is based upon the inadequacy of the warning with respect to smoking and health, or requires a showing that additional information should have been included in the manufacturer’s advertising or promotions of cigarettes. ( 505 US, at 524 .) Although New York law generally requires proof of a duty to disclose to sustain a fraudulent concealment or suppression claim (Swersky v Dreyer & Traub, 219 AD2d 321, 326 [1st Dept 1996]), such a showing is not required where “in addition to nondisclosur