## Facts

- Paul Micallef operated a large photo-offset printing press (model RU-1) manufactured and sold by Miehle Co., a machine capable of high-speed printing.
- While the press was running, Micallef observed a “hickie” (foreign substance) on the printing plate that caused blemishes on printed sheets.
- Standard practice in the printing industry was to “chase hickies on the run” to avoid lengthy downtime required to restart the machine after stopping.
- Micallef attempted to remove the hickie by lightly applying a piece of plastic to the rapidly rotating plate cylinder.
- On the second attempt, the plastic was pulled into the nip point between the plate cylinder and an ink-form roller, drawing in Micallef’s hand.
- The press lacked guards that would have prevented entry into the nip point, and the shut-off control was positioned so Micallef could not reach it while trapped.
- Micallef sued for negligent design and breach of implied warranty.
- The jury found for Micallef on negligence but also found contributory negligence, which then barred recovery; the jury also found for Micallef on implied warranty.
- The trial court set aside the warranty verdict and ordered a new trial due to errors in the charge; the Appellate Division reinstated judgment for the manufacturer and dismissed the warranty claim, relying on the “patent danger” rule.

## Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer’s design-duty is eliminated when the alleged hazard is open and obvious under the “patent danger” doctrine.
2. Whether the design-defect implied-warranty claim could be dismissed based on the obviousness of the danger.
3. Whether the case required retrial because the legal framework and instructions treated obviousness as dispositive rather than as one factor in evaluating unreasonable risk and fault.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.
- The court rejected the “patent danger” rule that categorically negated a manufacturer’s design-duty where the danger was obvious.
- The court held that a manufacturer may be liable for negligent design despite the obvious nature of the risk if the design creates an unreasonable risk of harm that reasonable design measures could reduce.
- The court ordered a new trial on all issues, including negligence, contributory fault, and implied warranty, under the corrected design-defect standard.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer has a duty to use reasonable care in designing a product so it is reasonably safe for intended and foreseeable uses.
- The duty of reasonable design care is not satisfied merely because a dangerous condition is readily observable.
- Obviousness of risk is relevant to the fact-finder’s evaluation (including user conduct and fault), but it does not eliminate the manufacturer’s duty or bar design-defect claims as a matter of law.
- Foreseeable industry practices in using a product, even if they involve approaching known hazards during operation, may be treated as foreseeable use for purposes of design-defect analysis.
- A design defect posing an unreasonable risk of harm may support both negligent-design and implied-warranty theories, and both must be evaluated under a standard not controlled by a categorical “obvious danger” bar.

## Conclusion

New York’s highest court eliminated the patent-danger doctrine in design-defect litigation, holding that open and obvious hazards do not automatically defeat claims for negligent design or implied warranty; because the case had been evaluated under an incorrect legal rule, it required a new trial on all issues.


Micallef v. Miehle Co., 39 N.Y.2d 376, 384 N.Y.S.2d 115, 348 N.E.2d 571 (N.Y. 1976)