Micallef v. Miehle Co.
39 N.Y.2d 376, 348 N.E.2d 571, 95 A.L.R. 3d 1055 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is obligated to exercise reasonable care in designing a product to avoid any unreasonable risk of harm when the product is used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose, and is not absolved from this duty merely because a design defect is open and obvious.
Facts:
- Paul Micallef, a printing-press operator, was assigned to operate a large photo-offset press manufactured by Miehle-Goss Dexter, Inc.
- While the press was running, Micallef noticed a foreign object, known as a 'hickie,' on the printing plate.
- Following common industry practice, Micallef attempted to remove the hickie by applying a piece of plastic to the spinning plate cylinder, a procedure known as 'chasing a hickie on the run.'
- Stopping the machine to perform this task was financially impractical as it required at least three hours to restart.
- While attempting to remove the hickie, Micallef's hand was drawn into the nip point between the high-speed plate cylinder and an ink roller, causing serious injury.
- The press was not equipped with any safety guards to prevent such an injury, though such guards were commercially available.
- Micallef was aware of the danger involved in 'chasing a hickie,' and the manufacturer was aware that press operators performed the procedure in this manner.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Micallef sued Miehle-Goss Dexter, Inc. in a New York trial court, alleging negligent design and breach of warranty.
- At trial, the jury found the defendant negligent but also found the plaintiff contributorily negligent, which barred recovery on the negligence claim.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Micallef, on the breach of warranty claim.
- On a post-trial motion, the trial court set aside the entire verdict and ordered a new trial on all issues in the interest of justice.
- The defendant, Miehle-Goss Dexter, Inc., appealed this order to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, reinstated the jury's verdict on the negligence claim (a defense verdict), and directed judgment for the defendant on the breach of warranty claim.
- The plaintiff, Paul Micallef, appealed 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 the open and obvious nature of a dangerous design defect in a product absolve the manufacturer from liability for injuries caused by that defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooke, J.
No. The open and obvious nature of a design defect does not, as a matter of law, preclude a manufacturer's liability for resulting injuries. In explicitly departing from the 'patent danger' rule of Campo v. Scofield, the court held that a manufacturer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in product design to prevent any unreasonable risk of harm. The court reasoned that in a modern technological society, the manufacturer is in a superior position to recognize and cure defects, and the burden should be on them to design safe products. The previous rule, which granted manufacturers immunity for patent dangers, was a harsh vestige of an older legal era that improperly treated the issue as an assumption of risk as a matter of law. The obviousness of a danger is not a complete bar to recovery but is rather a factor for the jury to consider when determining if the plaintiff exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark shift in New York's products liability jurisprudence, formally abandoning the antiquated 'patent danger' rule. By overruling Campo v. Scofield, the court aligned New York with the modern trend in tort law, which favors a risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims. The holding significantly increases the responsibility of manufacturers to incorporate feasible safety features, even for obvious hazards, thereby enhancing consumer and worker protection. Future design defect cases in New York will no longer be dismissed simply because a danger was obvious, but will instead involve a fact-intensive jury inquiry into the reasonableness of the manufacturer's design choices and the plaintiff's conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Micallef v. Miehle Co.