Jaggernauth Sugrim was injured using a blade saw which lacked a blade guard and sued Ryobi Technologies, the saw's manufacturer, and Home Depot, the retailer that sold the item.
Although it dismissed the "manufacturing defect" and "failure to warn" theories, the Queens County Supreme Court allowed a "design defect" claim to survive.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed that the defendants weren't obligated to warn of the risks associated with using a guardless saw since Sugrim was already familiar with the danger. And because he admitted the machine functioned properly, his manufacturing defect allegations also couldn't survive.
But the appellate court thought there were unresolved questions related to the purported design defect. While the defendants claimed it was impossible to manufacture a saw with a permanent blade guard, Sugrim's expert testimony suggested otherwise.
That wasn't so grim, now was it?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Sugrim v. Ryobi Tech., Inc.