## Facts

- Concetta Scarangella, a school-bus driver employed by Huntington Coach Corp., was severely injured in Huntington’s bus yard when a co-employee backed a school bus into her (Sept. 26, 1988).
- The bus was one of ten new buses Huntington purchased from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. in 1988.
- Thomas offered an automatic back-up alarm as optional equipment; Huntington declined to purchase it.
- Huntington’s president/COO, Kevin Clifford, testified he knew the alarm was available and made a deliberate decision not to buy it due to repeated backing in a residential-area yard and concerns about noise; he instructed drivers to use the standard horn and exercise caution when backing.
- Scarangella and her husband sued Thomas for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability, alleging (among other theories) defective design based on the absence of a back-up alarm.
- On the back-up alarm theory, plaintiffs offered no evidence beyond the assertion that school buses should have back-up alarms because of driver blind spots.
- The trial court precluded the back-up alarm design-defect theory from being submitted to the jury; the case proceeded on other design-defect claims, which were dismissed by directed verdict.
- The Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals reviewed only the preclusion of the back-up alarm design-defect theory.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may present a design-defect claim to the jury based on a manufacturer’s failure to include, as standard equipment, a safety device offered as an option when the knowledgeable purchaser declined it.
2. Under what conditions a purchaser’s informed decision to omit optional safety equipment shifts responsibility away from the manufacturer in design-defect litigation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order precluding the back-up alarm design-defect theory.
- The court held Thomas was not liable for defective design based on failure to make the optional back-up alarm standard equipment under the circumstances presented.
- The court concluded no triable issue existed because the undisputed proof satisfied the conditions under which the purchaser’s decision excuses the manufacturer from liability.

## Legal Principles

- Design-defect liability applies a risk–utility inquiry asking whether the product, as designed, is not reasonably safe in light of foreseeable risks and feasible alternatives.
- For claims that a product is defectively designed because a safety device was offered only as an option, the manufacturer is not liable when:
  - the purchaser is thoroughly knowledgeable about the product and its use and is actually aware the safety feature is available;
  - there are normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional equipment; and
  - the purchaser is in a position, given its intended uses, to weigh the benefits and risks of omitting the safety device for its particular operations.
- When these conditions are met, the purchaser is treated as better situated to make the risk–utility choice for its own use, and the purchaser’s decision to omit the option excuses the manufacturer from design-defect liability on that theory.
- A plaintiff opposing preclusion must present evidence creating a triable fact issue that the product without the option was not reasonably safe; a conclusory claim that all such products should include the device is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that where a sophisticated buyer knowingly declines an available safety option, the product has normal safe uses without the option, and the buyer controls usage conditions and can assess the tradeoffs, the manufacturer is not liable for design defect based solely on not making the optional device standard equipment; the plaintiff’s unsupported assertion did not create a triable issue for a jury.


Scarangella v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 655, 717 N.E.2d 679 (N.Y. 1999)