Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp.

290 A.2d 281 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, a minor, was operating a power punch press for his employer, Regina Corporation (Regina). The foreman directed him to work on the Havir punch press (which he had never before operated) and instructed him in its use. Thereafter he operated the machine unattended. P placed round metal discs one at a time by hand on top of the die. He would then depress the foot pedal activating the machine and causing the ram to descend about five inches and punch two holes in the disc. Each cycle would take approximately 10 seconds and that he had completed about 270 cycles during the 40 minutes he operated the machine. He noticed that a piece of metal didn't go right to the place and went to correct it, but at the same time, my foot had gone to the pedal. His hand had gotten caught and was crushed by the ram of the machine. P lost fingers, and his hand was deformed. P's father sued on his behalf. An expert mechanical engineer testified that the punch press amounted to a 'booby trap' because there were no safety devices in its basic design and none were installed prior to the accident. The expert described two 'basic types' of protective safety devices both of which were known in the industry at the time of the manufacture and sale. One was a push-button device with the buttons so spaced as to require the operator to place both hands on them away from the die area to set the machine in motion. The other device was a guardrail or gate to prevent the operator's hands from entering the area between the ram and die when the machine was activated. These and other safety devices were available from companies specializing in safety equipment. The expert also testified that safety devices were to be installed by the ultimate purchaser. However, in his opinion, the custom of the trade was improper in that the machine was defectively designed for safety and that purchasers 'almost never' provided safety devices. The trial court dismissed the action. The Appellate Division affirmed holding that under the Restatement One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.' Restatement, Torts 2d § 402A (1965). Since it was the custom of the trade that purchasers, rather than manufacturers, provide safety devices on punch presses like the one in question, D 'had no reason to believe that the press would be put to use without some additions. P appealed.