SHE SAW
In Johnson v. Delta Int'l. Mach. Corp., Laurie Johnson filed a negligence case against Delta International Machinery Corp. (DIM).
Johnson was injured while using a DIM saw which had its safety guard removed. When she later sued DIM for failing to warn of the danger, the company asked for the case's dismissal.
The Oswego County Supreme Court was of the view DIM didn't have a duty to warn since a saw is known to be dangerous if improperly used, and because no defects were established.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, didn't think the dangers were necessarily "open and obvious" to an inexperienced user.
Because Johnson wasn't familiar with the saw, and didn't know that the safety guard was missing, it wasn't clear to the AD4 whether Johnson appreciated the danger.
Since there were unresolved questions, he AD4 reversed the lower court's decision and reinstated Johnson's case.
Anyone have a DIM view of that?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Johnson v. Delta Int'l. Mach. Corp.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6115
