Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityDesign defectNegligenceStrict liabilityFailure to warnContributory negligenceproducts liability

Facts

Havir manufactured and sold a 10-ton punch press with no safety devices other than a flywheel guard. While operating the press at work, 18-year-old John Bexiga, Jr. placed a metal disc on the die, tried to correct its position with his hand, and simultaneously depressed the foot pedal, causing the ram to crush his hand. Plaintiffs' expert testified that the machine was dangerously designed without safety devices and identified a two-hand push-button device and gate-type guards as known safety measures. He further testified that the two-hand push-button device would not need modification for the machine's normal uses and that larger presses were equipped by manufacturers with such devices.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs made out a prima facie case that the punch press was defectively or negligently designed because it lacked protective safety devices, despite trade custom and the expectation that the purchaser would install guards. Also, whether contributory negligence was available as a defense on these facts.

Rule

Where a manufacturer places into the stream of trade a finished product that can be put to use and that should be provided with safety devices because without them it creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the manufacturer's expectation that someone else will install the devices does not immunize it if the devices can feasibly be installed by the manufacturer. When a machine lacks a protective safety device and thereby poses an unreasonable risk of harm, the jury may infer defective design unless it finds that incorporation of the safety device by the manufacturer would render the machine unusable for its intended purposes. Trade custom and statutory allocation of duties are evidential but not conclusive on negligence, and contributory negligence is unavailable where the plaintiff's conduct is the very eventuality the safety device was meant to prevent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Granite Forge Works, a fictional manufacturer in Cleveland, sold a finished sheet-stamping machine to a furniture-parts plant in Toledo. The machine could be operated immediately upon delivery, and it lacked any device preventing an operator's hands from being in the danger zone when the cycle began. The plaintiff's expert testified that a two-hand activation control known in the industry at the time could have been installed by Granite Forge Works and would have worked for the machine's ordinary operations without modification.

If an employee is injured when her hand is caught in the machine during ordinary use, which is the strongest argument that the employee has made out a jury question on strict liability?

Explanation. The majority held that when a manufacturer places into trade a finished product that can be put to use and that creates an unreasonable risk without a protective device, the manufacturer is not immunized if a safety device could feasibly have been installed by the manufacturer. On those facts, the issue should go to the jury, which may infer defective design unless the device would render the machine unusable for its intended purposes. (Derived from Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. (n.d.).)