Safety Guard Designed To Be Periodically Removable Creates Question Of Fact On Design Defect Claims

The workers’ compensation insurer of an injured worker’s employer brought product liability and negligence claims to recoup insurance payments made to the worker who sustained significant injuries when being cut by a large table saw.  The saw had been sold with a plastic blade guard but the guard was not in place at the time of the incident.  Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied the summary judgment motion filed by the defendant manufacturer and the defendant retailer and moved the case toward trial.  The defendants had argued that under New York law, the claims had to be dismissed because the saw had undergone a material modification after it had been purchased by the worker’s employer.

In New York, “a manufacturer of a product may not be cast in damages, either on a strict products liability or negligence cause of action, where, after the product leaves the possession and control of the manufacturer, there is a subsequent modification which substantially alters the product and is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.”  New York courts, however, have found that when a safety feature is designed to be removable, a jury question can exist about whether the product was defectively designed.  In other words, if a safety device is designed to be removed in certain situations, then the removal of the device may not be a “material modification” of the product.  The court found that here, because the blade guard was designed to be removed for “non-through” cuts and the operator manual covered the procedure for removing the guard, it gave rise to a jury question as to whether the saw was defectively designed.