Facts
- John Bexiga, Jr., age 18, worked at a New Jersey plant operating punch presses and drilling machines.
- During a night shift in June 1966, he was reassigned to operate a Havir 10-ton power punch press he had not previously used; he was instructed by a foreman and then operated it without supervision.
- The press (manufactured in 1961 and delivered to the employer) had no safety devices at shipment other than a flywheel guard.
- While operating the press, Bexiga’s right hand was crushed by the descending ram, causing loss of fingers and hand deformity.
- Plaintiffs alleged no defect in materials or workmanship; they claimed the press was defectively designed because it lacked feasible safety devices to protect the operator at the point of operation.
- The trial court dismissed at the close of plaintiffs’ case; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
- Whether a punch-press manufacturer has a duty, under negligence and strict liability, to install feasible safety devices when the machine otherwise poses an unreasonable risk of harm during normal operation.
- Whether the manufacturer may avoid liability by leaving selection and installation of safety devices to the purchaser.
- Whether contributory negligence or assumption of risk by the operator bars recovery when the alleged defect is the absence of a safety device intended to prevent foreseeable operator inattention or mistake.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the dismissal and remanded for a new trial.
- Plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient to reach a jury on negligence and strict liability based on the absence of protective safety devices creating an unreasonable risk of harm.
- The manufacturer could be found responsible for failing to incorporate feasible, generally applicable safety devices and could not rely on purchaser installation practices to defeat that duty where feasible manufacturer installation is shown.
- Contributory negligence was not treated as a complete bar in this context because the safety-device requirement is aimed at preventing the very type of operator inadvertence alleged.
Legal Principles
- A product may be defectively designed when, during foreseeable and normal use, it presents an unreasonable risk of harm that could be reduced by feasible safety devices.
- In design-defect claims alleging omission of safety features, a jury may infer defectiveness from the absence of protection unless incorporation of a safety device would render the product unusable for its intended purpose.
- Industry custom of leaving guards to purchasers does not, by itself, eliminate the manufacturer’s obligation to provide feasible safety measures.
- When a safety device is intended to protect users from foreseeable inattention or mistakes, contributory negligence should not operate as a complete defense to defeat the claim based on the missing safety feature.
Conclusion
The court held that a punch-press manufacturer may be liable in negligence and strict liability for failing to include feasible safety devices on inherently dangerous machinery, and that ordinary contributory negligence should not bar recovery where the alleged design defect is the absence of a safety device intended to prevent the operator’s foreseeable inadvertence.