Arcangeli v. Global Industries: Re-affirming the Manufacturer’s Continuing Duty to Warn and Heightened Burden on Summary Judgment for Design-Defect Claims Involving Used Farm Machinery

Introduction

Arcangeli v. Global Industries, Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 02519) is a Fourth Department decision that reverses two summary-judgment orders that had dismissed all claims arising from a fatal farm accident involving a used grain auger. The Appellate Division’s ruling is significant for two reasons:

1. It clarifies the evidentiary burden a manufacturer must shoulder to obtain summary judgment on a design-defect claim when the product is old, has changed hands several times, and has been allegedly modified.
2. It re-affirms that casual or non-commercial sellers owe a duty to warn of non-obvious hazards—even when the danger relates to missing safety guards that the manufacturer originally supplied.

The decision thus tightens the path to early dismissal for manufacturers in New York products-liability litigation and highlights continued exposure for farmers and other private sellers who market used equipment.

Case Background

• Parties
  • Plaintiff: Kathy Arcangeli, Administrator of the Estate of Jay Emery Arcangeli (decedent).
  • Defendants:
  • Global Industries, Inc. – successor to the original manufacturer divisions Hutchinson Mayrath/Mayrath Industries.
  • Lea Michael Hares, Frances M. Hares, and Jesse James Hares d/b/a Hares Farms – casual sellers who transferred the auger to decedent.
• Factual Setting
  In 2019, while transferring grain on his family farm, decedent became entangled in the drive-shaft connection point of a grain auger that lacked its original guard shield, suffering fatal injuries.
• Pleadings
  The estate sued Global under theories of negligent design, strict liability for design defect, and strict liability for failure to warn; and sued the Hares defendants for negligent failure to warn, adding a wrongful-death claim against all defendants.
• Procedural Posture
  Supreme Court (Onondaga County) granted summary judgment to both Global and the Hares defendants, dismissing all claims. Plaintiff appealed; the Fourth Department heard the appeals together.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the trial court in both appeals and reinstated every cause of action against Global and the Hares defendants, holding:

1. Global failed to meet its initial burden on design-defect and negligent-design claims; its expert affidavit did not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with industry standards at the time of manufacture.
2. Even if Global met its burden on the failure-to-warn claim, plaintiff’s expert raised triable issues about the adequacy of the warnings.
3. Global could not invoke the “substantial modification” defense without first proving the product was safe when originally sold.
4. Triable issues existed regarding the Hares defendants’ duty to warn because the missing guard could be deemed a non-obvious hazard.
5. Because liability claims survived, the derivative wrongful-death claim necessarily survived as well.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Robinson v. Reed-Prentice, 49 N.Y.2d 471 (1980) – foundational tri-partite definition of product defect (manufacture, design, warning). The court quoted Robinson to frame strict-liability theory.
• Chamberlain v. MAC Trailer, 128 A.D.3d 1336 (4th Dep’t 2015) – sets out manufacturer’s evidentiary burden to show compliance with applicable industry standards. Relied upon to find Global’s submission insufficient.
• Steinbarth v. Otis Elevator, 269 A.D.2d 751 (4th Dep’t 2000) – emphasizes need for proof of industry-standard compliance “at the time of manufacture.” The court analogized to hold Global’s expert silent on that temporal point.
• Hoover v. New Holland, 23 N.Y.3d 41 (2014) – key Court of Appeals precedent on the “substantial modification” defense. Hoover requires a manufacturer to first establish product’s original non-defectiveness; Arcangeli applies Hoover to deny Global summary judgment.
• Gian v. Cincinnati Inc., 17 A.D.3d 1014 (4th Dep’t 2005) – authority that manufacturer may be liable for failure to warn even when safety devices are rendered inoperative by others. Cited to reject Global’s argument that missing guard obviated duty.
• Additional supporting cases: Beechler, Terwilliger, Repka, Oliver, Houston, Johnson, Rosario, Breau, and the procedural touchstones Winegrad and Mariani.

Together, these precedents create a matrix governing summary judgment in products-liability litigation. Arcangeli synthesizes them, re-stating that courts must:

1. Ensure manufacturers’ proof explicitly covers industry standards extant at original manufacture.
2. Disallow the substantial-modification defense when original product safety is unproven.
3. Recognize that failure-to-warn liability endures despite subsequent modifications.
4. Treat “open and obvious” analysis as fact-intensive, usually unsuitable for summary disposition.

2. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Allocation of the Burden on Summary Judgment
   The movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Only then does the burden shift. Because Global’s expert merely stated, in conclusory terms, that the auger “conformed to industry standards,” without specifying the relevant standards or their existence in the manufacture year, the threshold showing failed.
2. Design-Defect Theory
   Under New York law a plaintiff must show that (a) the product as designed was not reasonably safe; (b) a feasible safer alternative was available; and (c) the defect was a substantial factor in causing injury. But at the summary-judgment stage, the manufacturer, as movant, bears the initial burden to negate one of these elements or prove the product was safe. Lack of substantive, time-specific proof doomed Global’s motion.
3. Substantial Modification Defense
   Global argued that removal of the guard constituted a substantial alteration that relieved it of liability. Following Hoover, the Fourth Department held that a manufacturer must first demonstrate the product was not defective when initially sold. Because Global did not clear that bar, the defense never came into play.
4. Failure-to-Warn Theory
   Even assuming arguendo Global’s proof sufficed, plaintiff’s expert affidavit identifying deficiencies in label placement, sizing, and specificity created questions of fact. The court noted the principle from Gian that the duty to warn continues when safety devices become inoperative.
5. Negligent Design vs. Strict Liability
   Echoing Beechler, the Fourth Department reiterated that the evidentiary burdens for negligent design and strict-liability design defect are almost identical; therefore Global’s motion failed for both claims.
6. Casual Seller’s Duty to Warn
   The Hares defendants, though not manufacturers or retailers, had a duty to warn of hidden dangers. Whether the missing guard was “open and obvious” is a fact-laden inquiry, especially where the equipment’s condition may have been obscured or the user distracted. This precluded summary judgment.
7. Derivative Wrongful-Death Claim
   Because underlying tort claims survived, the wrongful-death claim, dependent solely on tort liability (EPTL 5-4.1), also survived.

3. Likely Impact of the Decision

• Manufacturers – Defendants can no longer rely on generalized expert affidavits about “industry standards.” Detailed, contemporaneous standards and affirmative proof of compliance will be required, especially for machinery that is decades old and resold.
• Used-Equipment Market – Farmers, auctioneers, and casual sellers must recognize they can be sued for failure to warn where hazards are not facially obvious. Expect more private-seller disclosures and possibly written indemnities.
• Litigation Strategy – Plaintiffs will emphasize inadequate warnings and missing documentation of industry standards; defendants will invest in historical-standards research. Experts with archival standards knowledge will be indispensable.
• Open-and-Obvious Doctrine – Arcangeli confirms that this doctrine rarely defeats failure-to-warn claims at the summary-judgment stage unless the evidence is overwhelming.
• Appellate Guidance – Trial courts in the Fourth Department (and persuasive authority elsewhere) now have explicit instructions on handling design-defect and warning claims involving modified equipment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Strict Products Liability: A legal theory that holds a manufacturer liable for injuries caused by a defective product regardless of negligence.
• Design Defect: A flaw inherent in a product’s blueprint making it unsafe when used as intended.
• Failure to Warn: Liability arising when a manufacturer or seller does not provide adequate instructions or warnings about non-obvious dangers.
• Substantial Modification Defense: A defense asserting that a product was safe when sold and only became dangerous after significant alterations by others.
• Open and Obvious Hazard: A dangerous condition that an ordinary user would notice and avoid; if truly obvious, no duty to warn attaches.
• Summary Judgment: A procedural device allowing courts to dispose of claims when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.
• Casual Seller: A non-professional seller who occasionally sells goods outside the course of business, e.g., a farmer selling used equipment.

Conclusion

Arcangeli v. Global Industries is more than a routine reversal; it is a clarion reminder that:

1. Manufacturers bear a stringent, evidence-based burden when seeking summary dismissal of design-defect claims, especially for legacy machinery.
2. The duty to warn endures and can attach equally to manufacturers and casual sellers when hazards are not patently obvious.
3. “Substantial modification” is not a get-out-of-liability card; its use depends on first establishing the product’s original safety.

In the broader legal landscape, the ruling strengthens consumer and worker protections, signals caution to used-equipment sellers, and refines New York’s products-liability jurisprudence by cementing the requirement for historically grounded expert testimony.