Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityDesign defectOptional safety equipmentdesign defectstrict products liabilityoptional safety featuresophisticated purchaser

Facts

Plaintiff, a school bus driver employed by Huntington Coach, was severely injured when a coemployee reversed a school bus into her in Huntington's parking yard. The bus was one of 10 new buses Thomas sold Huntington in 1988, and Thomas offered an automatic back-up alarm as optional equipment, but Huntington knowingly declined it. Huntington's president, an experienced bus operator, testified that he deliberately rejected the alarm because repeated backing in a residential-area yard would create noise problems, and instead instructed drivers to use caution and sound the ordinary horn before backing. Plaintiff offered no specific evidence in response and relied solely on the assertion that a school bus is always defective without an automatic back-up alarm because of the driver's blind spot in reverse.

Issue

Whether plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the bus was defectively designed because Thomas did not include a back-up alarm as standard equipment. More specifically, the question was whether, on the submissions made on the preclusion motion, plaintiff could present that optional-safety-device design defect theory to the jury.

Rule

A product without an optional safety feature is not defectively designed where the evidence and reasonable inferences show that: (1) the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable about the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available; (2) there are normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional equipment; and (3) the buyer is in a position, given the range of uses of the product, to balance the benefits and risks of not having the safety device in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer's use. When those factors are present, the buyer rather than the manufacturer is in the superior position to make the risk-utility judgment, and the buyer's well-considered decision to forgo the option excuses the manufacturer from liability.

🔒

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.

Lakeview Cartage, a private refuse company in Cleveland, bought 18 front-end loaders from Iron Summit Equipment. The loaders came with an optional cab-mounted proximity alarm that sounded when the machine moved in reverse. Lakeview's fleet director, who had managed heavy-equipment operations for 25 years, knew the alarm was available but declined it because the loaders were to be used only inside Lakeview's fenced transfer yard, where workers were trained never to walk behind reversing machines; an employee was later injured in that yard by a loader backing up.

In the employee's design-defect suit against Iron Summit, which is the strongest argument for the manufacturer under the governing rule?

Explanation. When a product lacks optional safety equipment, the manufacturer is not liable on that theory if the evidence shows three things: a knowledgeable buyer actually knew of the option, normal circumstances of use existed in which the product was not unreasonably dangerous without it, and the buyer was in the superior position to balance risks and benefits for its specifically contemplated use. These facts fit that framework because the buyer was experienced, knew of the option, limited use to a particular yard, and adopted alternative operating rules. (Derived from Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (n.d.).)