Legal Opinion
Micallef v. Miehle Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 8, 1976PublishedCited by 352 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCooke, J.
The time has come to depart from the patent danger rule enunciated in Campo v Scofield (301 NY 468).
This action was initiated to recover damages for personal injuries, allegedly resulting from negligent design and breach of an implied warranty. Paul Micallef, plaintiff, was employed by Lincoln Graphic Arts at its Farmingdale plant as a printing-press operator. For eight months he had been assigned to operate a photo-offset press, model RU 1, manufactured and sold by defendant Miehle-Goss Dexter, Inc., to his employer. The machine was 150 feet long, 15 feet high and 5 feet wide and was capable…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Codling v. PagliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Campo v. ScofieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Victorson v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Bolm v. Triumph Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1973
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by352 opinions
- Nicastro v. ParkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Palka v. Servicemaster Management Services Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
347 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.