## Facts

- Luis Liriano, a 17-year-old grocery store employee with limited experience, operated a Hobart commercial meat grinder at work.
- The grinder was originally sold with a safety guard over the feed opening, but the employer removed the guard before the accident.
- The grinder had no warning stating it should be used only with the guard attached or warning of the danger of operating without the guard.
- While feeding meat into the unguarded grinder, Liriano’s hand was caught in the grinder mechanism, amputating his right hand and lower forearm.
- Evidence indicated Hobart knew, before the accident, that customers sometimes removed grinder guards; Hobart later began adding warnings, but only after the unit at issue had been sold.
- Liriano testified he was not warned or trained about the hazard and did not know the grinder had been designed to have a guard.

## Issues

1. Under New York law, can a manufacturer be liable for failure to warn of dangers arising from foreseeable third-party product modifications even when a design-defect claim would be barred by the substantial-modification doctrine?
2. On the trial record, was Hobart entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the risk was open and obvious or because causation was insufficient?
3. Was there reversible error warranting a new trial, including regarding apportionment of fault?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Liriano on the failure-to-warn theory.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could find Hobart had a duty to warn of the danger of operating the grinder without the guard because guard removal was foreseeable.
- The court rejected a categorical “open and obvious” defense and held the record supported treating obviousness as a fact question given Liriano’s age, inexperience, and lack of training.
- The court held the jury could reasonably find proximate causation from the absence of a warning.
- The court upheld the jury’s apportionment of fault among Hobart, the employer, and Liriano and found no other appellate claims warranted relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York products-liability law, the substantial-modification doctrine that bars design-defect liability does not automatically bar failure-to-warn liability when the modification is reasonably foreseeable.
- A manufacturer’s duty to warn may extend to dangers arising from foreseeable misuse or foreseeable third-party alterations.
- “Open and obvious” danger does not categorically eliminate the duty to warn; it is commonly a fact-dependent issue.
- In failure-to-warn cases, a jury may infer that an adequate warning would have been heeded absent strong evidence to the contrary, supporting a finding of proximate cause.
- Comparative fault principles allow allocation of responsibility among manufacturer, employer/modifier, and injured user.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld a jury verdict imposing failure-to-warn liability on a manufacturer for injuries caused by use of a product after a foreseeable safety-guard removal, holding that substantial modification does not bar warning claims and that obviousness and causation were for the jury on this record.


Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 170 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1999)