Almonte v. Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc.
128 F. Supp. 3d 729
W.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Almonte was injured while operating Brunner’s Brake Shoe Inspection System designed by Defendant Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc.
- The system included a moving main conveyor with pushers and gravity conveyors, and sometimes brake shoes flipped, causing safety issues.
- Defendant installed the system in 2004; Brunner later added a guard after the accident; no guards were initially provided by Defendant.
- Plaintiff reached over the Left Side of the Conveyor to fix a fallen brake shoe when his glove was caught and his hand injured by a ram/pusher.
- Plaintiff alleges design defect, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty; Defendant moved for summary judgment and to exclude Plaintiff’s expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony | Coniglio’s safety expertise supports design and guarding opinions. | OSHA/ASME/CEMA reliance is unreliable under Daubert. | Coniglio qualified; OSHA/ASME/E-stops/CEMA reliance limited and partially excluded. |
| Manufacturing defect vs design defect | Feasibility of a safer design shown by post‑accident guarding improvements. | No evidence of manufacturing defect; liability should be limited to design. | Manufacturing defect claims dismissed; design defect questions remain for trial. |
| Foreseeability and manner of use | Left‑side access to fix flips was foreseeable given pinch points and known problem. | Use was unforeseeable or contrary to safety policies. | Manner of use raises triable issues; not unforeseeable as a matter of law. |
| Implied warranty statute of limitations | Implied warranty may extend if consumer injury exists. | Delivery was 2004; suit filed 2011 falls outside four-year limit. | Implied warranty claim time-barred; granted summary judgment for Implied warranty. |
| Express warranty and personal injury exception | Personal injury exception allows recovery despite lack of privity. | Privity required, no personal injury exception applies. | Personal injury exception applies; express warranty claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amatulli by Amatulli v. Delhi Const. Corp., 77 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1991) (nondelegable duty of design and manufacture)
- Amorgianos v. N.Y. N.R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (Daubert gatekeeping and reliability standards)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible Daubert gatekeeping standard)
- Gian v. Cincinnati Inc., 17 A.D.3d 1014 (4th Dep’t 2005) (industry standards in products liability analysis)
- Byrne v. Liquid Asphalt Sys., Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 491 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (OSHA standards not always applicable to manufacturers)
- Del Cid v. Beloit Corp., 901 F. Supp. 539 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (foreseeability and guarding considerations)
- Rupolo v. Oshkosh Truck Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 31 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (application of industry standards in design defect analysis)
- Seeley v. FKI Logistex, 2009 WL 2871170 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (post‑accident design changes as feasible alternative design evidence)
- Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (feasibility of safer alternative design)