Benthin v. Onion Topping Machine Manufacturers

NY: Court of Appeals
301 NY 468, 95 NE 2d 802 (1950)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A manufacturer is not liable in negligence for injuries caused by a product's patent dangers. The manufacturer's duty to remote users is limited to making the product free from latent defects and concealed dangers.

Facts:

Defendants manufactured and sold an 'onion topping' machine, designed to cut the tops off onions using four revolving steel rollers.
The machine was sold to Henry Benthin and did not have any guards to prevent a user's hands from coming into contact with the rollers.
The machine also lacked an accessible stopping device; the power was supplied by a tractor, and the gear shift to stop the machine was located fifteen feet away from the operator's station.
Plaintiff was working on his son's farm, assisting in the onion harvest.
While feeding a crate of onions into the machine, plaintiff's hands were caught in the revolving rollers.
As a result of the incident, plaintiff's hands were so severely injured that they required amputation.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff sued the defendant manufacturers in a New York trial court, alleging negligence in the design and manufacture of the onion topping machine.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.
The case was heard by the intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, which ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the complaint was legally insufficient.
The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Appellate Division to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a manufacturer have a duty in negligence to equip a machine with safety guards or devices when the danger posed by the machine's unguarded parts is obvious and patent to the user?

Opinions:

Majority - Fuld, J.

No. A manufacturer of a machine that is dangerous because of the way in which it functions, and is patently so, owes a duty to users merely to make it free from latent defects and concealed dangers. The complaint fails because it does not allege the existence of a latent defect or a danger unknown to the plaintiff. The manufacturer is under no duty to guard against injury from a patent peril or from a source that is manifestly dangerous. The very nature of a machine with exposed rollers gives notice and warning of the consequences of contact, and the manufacturer has the right to expect that users will do everything necessary to avoid such contact. To impose a duty to make a product 'accident proof' or foolproof is a significant policy change that is the function of the legislature, not the courts.

Analysis:

This case established the 'patent danger' rule (or 'open and obvious danger' rule) as a significant limitation on a manufacturer's liability for negligent design. Under this doctrine, a manufacturer could be absolved of liability if the danger that caused the injury was obvious to the user, thereby placing the primary responsibility for safety on the user. This rule served as a substantial barrier for plaintiffs in design defect cases for many years until it was later abrogated or modified in New York and other jurisdictions in favor of a risk-utility balancing test, which considers whether the product's design was reasonably safe regardless of whether the danger was obvious.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Benthin v. Onion Topping Machine Manufacturers (1950)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature