Mott v. CALLAHAN AMS MACHINE COMPANY

Citations: 416 A.2d 57; 174 N.J. Super. 202

Court: New Jersey Superior Court; March 5, 1980; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On March 22, 1974, Shirley Mott was injured while working as a packer for Clevepak Corporation, specifically when she stepped between a stock reel and a punch press machine, resulting in severe injury to her ankle and foot. Mott filed a products liability lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Callahan AMS Machinery Company and various related entities, alleging defective design due to a lack of safety guards between the stock reel and the punch press. The machinery in question was ordered by Clevepak from Callahan and included components manufactured by Callahan and Cooper Weymouth Company. The instruction sheet for the stock reel indicated that a distance of six to ten feet should be maintained between it and the punch press, a specification that Callahan did not implement or communicate to Clevepak. Callahan, in its defense, asserted that it merely supplied the equipment and was not responsible for installation details. Additionally, Callahan cross-claimed against Cooper Weymouth for negligence in providing distance specifications without accompanying safety measures. Other defendants contended that the responsibility for safety devices lay with Callahan, arguing that a uniform guard rail would be unsuitable given the diverse materials the reel could handle.

Summary judgments were granted in favor of the Cooper Weymouth companies based on their provision of a component part rather than a standalone machine, asserting that Callahan was solely responsible for installing safety devices on the punch press, motorized reel, and roll feed sold as a package. Both plaintiffs and Callahan argue that dismissing the complaint against other defendants was erroneous due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Cooper-Weymouth defendants' liability, which should preclude summary judgment. Defendants maintain that, as manufacturers of a component part, they cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from design defects in the final product. The court acknowledged a jury question regarding the strict liability of the manufacturers for allegedly defective design due to the lack of a safety device between the motorized reel and roll feed. Citing relevant case law, including *Roy v. Star Chopper Co., Inc.*, the court noted that manufacturers of component parts could be held strictly liable. In *Verge v. Ford Motor Co.*, the court examined the distribution of responsibility for safety device installation in products resulting from multiple manufacturers’ contributions, emphasizing considerations such as trade custom and relative expertise in determining liability.

The document emphasizes the importance of practicality in determining when the installation of safety devices on products is most feasible. It references the New Jersey Supreme Court's perspective on trade relations, asserting that legal considerations should reflect realistic trade practices rather than idealistic notions. In the case reviewed, the court ruled in favor of Ford, noting insufficient evidence to establish trade custom and highlighting that the garbage truck manufacturer had greater expertise in installing warning devices than Ford. The Verge court evaluated the practicality of installation, distinguishing it from the precedent set in Bexiga v. Havir Mfg. Co., where the installation of safety devices was deemed impractical due to the versatility of the machine in question. The Supreme Court in Bexiga had ruled that a universal safety device could have been feasible, contradicting the lower courts' decisions. However, in the present case, the Verge court concluded that it was not feasible for Ford to determine which trucks required modifications, thus placing the responsibility on the garbage truck manufacturer, Leach, to install the warning devices. The text also critiques a narrow interpretation of liability stemming from Bexiga, asserting that the factual issues surrounding the three-part test from Verge warrant further examination of trade customs. An expert report cited in the document underscores that manufacturers should proactively mitigate dangers associated with their products, reinforcing the notion of established safety practices.

Sharp edges are widely acknowledged hazards in the metalworking industry. The vice-president of Cooper Weymouth reported a lack of awareness regarding any safety devices that could be placed between the motorized reel and punch press. The Bexiga court emphasized that the practice of having purchasers install safety devices is merely evidential, not conclusive. The record lacks evidence to establish expertise or practical knowledge on this matter. An expert's report noted that Cooper Weymouth's equipment must be operated with a separation, while Callahan AMS was aware of the operational conditions due to their sale of a 'package' product. It is deemed necessary to hold a plenary trial to assess whether Cooper Weymouth had a duty to install safety devices or meet a standard of care regarding foreseeable hazards, referencing Essex v. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co. for support. Although the relevant parts were manufactured by Cooper Weymouth Maine and Cooper Weymouth Company, other defendants are liable as successor corporations for product liability claims against their predecessor. Defendants Sterling and others argued that plaintiffs had no right to appeal due to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice; however, the settlement transcript clarified that the dismissal only applied to Callahan, leaving the other defendants viable for appeal following summary judgments in their favor. The decision is reversed and remanded for trial and further proceedings, with no jurisdiction retained.