Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

THOMAS TORROGROSSA, Appellant, v. TOWMOTOR CO., Subsidiary of CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO., INC., et al., Respondents. PENNCO INDUSTRIAL INC., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent,

MEMORANDUM.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Concededly, the verdict of the jury in favor of Towmotor established that there was neither a breach of implied warranty in the design of the forklift nor negligence in the nature of the warnings contained on the operating plate or manual which accompanied its sale. Of the theories the plaintiff espoused, that left him with only one against the remaining defendant, Pennco, i.e., that the latter was negligent in failing to include the plate and the manual with the lift when it was leased to plaintiff's employer or in otherwise failing to instruct the operator. We conclude there was no duty of instruction in this case and plaintiff has failed to prove that the negligence, if negligence it be, in failing to provide the plate and manual, was the proximate cause of his injuries (Sheehan v City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496, 501; Cole v Swagler, 308 N.Y. 325, 329-330). The plate or the manual would not have warned against the particular driving maneuver which plaintiff claims preceded the accident; the language of each did no more than repeat familiar bromides about slow and careful driving such as are self-evident to operators of motor vehicles generally.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TORROGROSSA v. TOWMOTOR CO
(Mar 29, 1978)