## Facts

- In 1968, Jose Francisco Cepeda, a young worker, operated a plastic pelletizing machine manufactured by Cumberland Engineering Co. and sold to his employer in 1956.
- Cepeda’s left hand was injured, resulting in the loss of four fingers.
- The machine was originally sold with a bolted safety guard covering the cutting area; if in place, the guard would have prevented the injury.
- The guard had apparently been removed before Cepeda began working with the machine on the day of the accident.
- Cepeda claimed a design defect: the guard had to be removed frequently during normal operation (e.g., to clear jams or for maintenance), making it foreseeable it would sometimes not be replaced before restart.
- Cepeda asserted a feasible, available alternative design existed: an electronic interlock that would prevent operation when the guard was not installed.
- Cumberland argued the machine met general safety standards at the time of sale and was intended to be operated only with the guard in place; it also argued Cepeda’s conduct constituted contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury may find a machine defectively designed under strict products liability when it was sold with a removable guard, but normal operation requires frequent guard removal and a feasible interlock could prevent operation without the guard.
2. Whether strict-liability design-defect principles require manufacturers to protect against foreseeable operation of a machine with a removed guard.
3. What role user negligence plays in strict products liability, including the distinction between ordinary carelessness and conduct amounting to assumption of risk or misuse.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the jury verdict for Cepeda.
- The Court held the evidence permitted a jury to find defective design despite the machine having been sold with a guard.
- The Court concluded that, given the foreseeability of operation without the guard and the asserted feasibility of an interlock, defectiveness was a fact question for the jury, not a matter of law for the court.
- The Court rejected the view that providing an adequate guard necessarily defeats a design-defect claim when the injury occurs after guard removal.
- The Court clarified that ordinary contributory negligence does not automatically bar strict-liability recovery; conduct resembling assumption of risk may affect recovery under then-existing doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- A product may be defectively designed in strict liability if it is unreasonably dangerous in light of foreseeable use conditions and feasible safer design alternatives.
- When normal operation requires frequent removal of a safety guard, it may be foreseeable that the machine will be operated without the guard; the manufacturer may be required to account for that risk in the design.
- The adequacy or presence of a guard does not, by itself, preclude design-defect liability when foreseeable nonuse of the guard creates an unreasonable risk and a practical safety device (e.g., an interlock) could reduce that risk.
- In strict products liability, ordinary user carelessness is generally not a complete bar to recovery; voluntary and unreasonable exposure to a known danger (assumption of risk) may limit or bar recovery under the applicable doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the plaintiff’s verdict, holding that a manufacturer may be strictly liable for defective design where foreseeable operation without a frequently removed guard creates a serious risk and a feasible interlock could prevent operation when the guard is absent, and that ordinary user negligence does not automatically defeat a design-defect claim.


Cepeda v. Cumberland Eng’g Co., 76 N.J. 152, 386 A.2d 816 (N.J. 1978)