WOMAN HIT WHILE UNDER HOOD

In Heimbuch v. Grumman Corp., Elizabeth Heimbuch filed suit against Grumman Corp. -- her truck's manufacturer -- after she was injured lifting the hood.

Heimbuch alleged that the truck was missing a "gas assist" device, which facilitated opening the outer metallic panel shielding the engine. She claimed that Grumman was strictly liable for the accident "based on a manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn."

When the Nassau County Supreme Court denied Grumman's motion to dismiss the case, the company appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

While a manufacturer can be sued when a company releases a defective product which has caused injury, Grumman established this particular truck had the disputed piece of equipment when released.

Since the device was removed after the vehicle was manufactured, Grumman wasn't the "proximate cause" of Heimbuch's injuries -- a necessary element in a products liability case. According to the AD2, Heimbuch was responsible for her own injuries since she knew the gas assist device was missing, yet continued to lift the hood without it every day.

Did the AD2 pull a Heimbuch maneuver?