## Facts

- Alphonso Burke, an employee of Metal Etching Company, lost fingers when a metal-shearing machine cut his right hand during workplace use.
- The machine was manufactured by Spartanics Ltd. and originally included a rear ramp and conveyor system leading to a stacking bin.
- Metal Etching later added its own ramp above the conveyor to catch cuttings, changing how scrap accumulated and requiring manual clearing near the machine.
- While clearing metal from the rear, Burke placed his right hand on the cutting surface to gain leverage; his supervisor, unaware Burke’s hand was in the cutting plane, activated a cut that severed Burke’s fingers.
- Burke had used the machine for roughly seven months and understood where the cutting plane was and the danger of placing a hand in that plane while the machine operated.
- The machine had a warning label on the front cautioning against approaching the cutting mechanism, but no warning label on the rear where Burke was working.
- Burke sued Spartanics under New York products-liability theories for design defect (lack of a rear guard anticipating foreseeable removal/modification of the conveyor) and failure to warn (lack of rear warnings).
- Spartanics impleaded Metal Etching for contribution/indemnity, attributing the hazard to the employer’s modification.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on Burke’s design-defect claim under New York law.
2. Whether admitting evidence of Burke’s drug use was an abuse of discretion and unfairly prejudicial.
3. Whether the jury charge erroneously stated that Spartanics had no duty to warn if Burke already knew of the danger or the danger was generally known, and whether any error warranted reversal given causation requirements.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Spartanics on all claims.
- The court upheld the defense verdict on design defect, finding the record contained conflicting evidence on feasibility and utility of a rear guard and on the role of Metal Etching’s modification, leaving the outcome within the jury’s province.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting drug-use evidence, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard and noting the issue was introduced in part through Burke’s own expert.
- The court agreed the duty-to-warn instruction misstated New York law by suggesting Burke’s knowledge eliminated the duty to warn, but held the error harmless because Burke failed to show that an additional rear warning would have altered his conduct and prevented the injury.

## Legal Principles

- In New York products-liability failure-to-warn claims, a manufacturer’s duty to warn is not automatically extinguished by a particular plaintiff’s subjective awareness of the risk.
- Even where a duty to warn exists and a warning is missing or inadequate, the plaintiff must prove causation: the absence of the warning must be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
- An erroneous duty-to-warn instruction may be harmless where the evidence establishes that the plaintiff already fully appreciated the danger and an added warning would not have changed behavior.
- Design-defect claims turning on feasibility, risk-utility considerations, and the effect of post-sale modifications commonly present fact questions for the jury; a verdict will not be disturbed absent overwhelmingly contrary evidence.
- Evidentiary rulings, including potentially prejudicial evidence, are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires showing substantial unfair prejudice affecting the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit left intact a jury verdict for the manufacturer, holding that the design-defect evidence did not compel judgment for the plaintiff and that, although the trial court misstated the duty-to-warn standard, the plaintiff’s admitted knowledge of the hazard defeated causation because an additional warning at the rear would not have prevented the accident.


Burke v. Spartanics, Ltd., 252 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2001)