Fegley v The Raymond Corporation and Abel Womack, Inc.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
This products liability case arises from warehouse equipment, specifically an electric reach truck used in a grocery warehouse, and concerns alleged design defects involving both the absence of a rear guard or door and an allegedly faulty steering mechanism.
The lower court granted defendants partial summary judgment by dismissing the design defect claims based on the absence of a rear guard or door, but it refused to dismiss the design defect claims based on the allegedly faulty steering mechanism.
The Appellate Division overturned the dismissal of the rear guard or door design defect claims and reinstated those claims.
Defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the purchaser was actually aware that the rear guard or door was an available optional safety feature and chose not to buy it, which is required under the optional safety feature rule stated in Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses. The appellate court also left the steering defect claims intact because defendants improperly raised their argument about the steering system for the first time in reply papers.
Background
Mark Fegley was injured while operating a reach truck, a type of electric forklift, in a grocery warehouse. Plaintiffs alleged that the truck suddenly lost power, turned in front of another reach truck, and collided with it, crushing plaintiff's left lower leg. The truck had been manufactured by The Raymond Corporation and sold by its dealer, Abel Womack, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted product liability and design defect claims, including claims based on the absence of a rear guard or door on the operator compartment and on an allegedly faulty steering mechanism.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Erie County, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the portion of the design defect claims based on the absence of a rear guard or door, which was an optional feature, but denied dismissal of the portion of the design defect claims based on the allegedly faulty steering mechanism.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by denying the part of defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the design defect claims related to the absence of a rear guard or door and reinstated those claims. The court held that defendants did not meet their initial burden under the first Scarangella factor because the record did not establish as a matter of law that the purchaser was actually aware of the optional safety feature and elected not to purchase it. Because defendants failed on that first factor, the court did not reach the remaining Scarangella factors. The court otherwise affirmed, holding that dismissal of the steering defect claims was properly denied because defendants first raised their steering argument in reply papers, which may not be used to introduce new arguments supporting summary judgment.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York's rule for optional safety features in design defect cases: a manufacturer or seller seeking summary judgment must prove, at a minimum, that the buyer was actually aware of the optional safety device and chose not to purchase it. Without that proof, dismissal is improper. The case also confirms the procedural rule that a movant cannot raise a new ground for summary judgment for the first time in reply papers.
A defendant cannot defeat a design defect claim based on a missing optional safety feature without clear proof that the buyer knew the feature was available and chose to forgo it, and summary judgment arguments must be presented in the initial motion papers, not saved for reply.