Rivera v. Hobart Corporation

Background

Miguel Rivera, who represented himself, sued Hobart Corporation and ITW Food Equipment Group LLC over injuries allegedly caused by a commercial dough mixer. The complaint asserted negligent design, negligent manufacture, negligent sale, and breach of express and implied warranties. Rivera alleged that his hand was caught in one of the defendants’ mixers on October 7, 2016, causing severe and permanent injuries.

Rivera originally filed the case in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The defendants later removed it to the federal court. During discovery, Rivera did not answer the defendants’ requests for information, provide requested documents, or make himself available for a deposition. His former lawyers withdrew after the court granted their motion, and Rivera did not appear at the later status conference. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, which Rivera did not oppose.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact important to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Even when a motion is unopposed, the court must independently determine that the evidence supports the defendants’ factual assertions and that the law entitles them to judgment.

Analysis

The defendants argued that Rivera’s claims failed because he had not provided expert testimony or other admissible evidence of a defect, the mixer had been substantially modified after leaving their control, and the warranty claims were untimely. The court based its decision on the substantial alteration of the mixer.

The defendants submitted a machine report showing that ITW manufactured the mixer in September 1988 with an interlocked bowl guard. The court also relied on evidence that the guard and related parts had been removed after the mixer was manufactured and sold. Without the guard, the mixer’s safety system was altered. The defendants’ expert stated that the mixer, as originally designed and shipped, complied with applicable industry standards, was reasonably safe for its intended use, and could operate only when the bowl guard was in place.

Under the law applied by the court, a manufacturer that designs and produces a safe product generally is not liable for injuries caused by a substantial alteration made by a third party after the product leaves the manufacturer’s possession and control, when that alteration makes the product unsafe. The court found that Rivera offered no evidence disputing the machine report, the removal of the guard, or the expert’s opinions. It therefore concluded that no genuine factual dispute existed concerning the mixer’s condition when it left the defendants’ control.

Ruling

Judge John F. Keenan granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Hobart Corporation and ITW Food Equipment Group LLC, terminate the motion, and close the case.