By John J. Megjugorac, Esq.

It is undisputed that manufacturers may be held strictly liable for defective products that cause a plaintiff’s injury.  That principle is a central concept behind products liability actions.  However, what duty, if any, does a servicing distributor of a defective or dangerous product owe to a plaintiff injured by a machine? New Jersey Courts faced with this question have reached different results depending on the facts of the case.  In Lally v. Printing Machinery Sales and Co., 240 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 1990), the Appellate Division distinguished the duties of a manufacturer or rebuilder of a machine from those of an occasional maintenance or service provider.  The Lally Court found that the latter had no duty to install safety devices or warn others of the potential danger in operating the machine without safety devices.  Lally, supra at 186.  In Lally, the plaintiff was injured while operating a machine that had been repaired by the defendant maintenance company.  The Lally Court stated:

“[I]f a defendant is merely engaged to maintain or to service a machine, the broad protective duties announced in [prior case law] will not be imposed, even though the servicer by its actions permits the machine again to be functional. In such a case, liability may be imposed only if the service itself is negligently performed, the parts provided are themselves defective, or another basis for liability exists.”  Lally at 186.

Conversely, in Calderon v. Machinenfabriek Bollegraaf Appingedam BV, 285 N.J.Super. 623 (App.Div.1995), the Appellate Division held that a machine’s service provider owed a duty to plaintiff who was injured while operating the machine after the machine’s safety device was disabled.  In that case, plaintiff’s employer removed safety devices from the subject machine and thus bypassed the interlock safety device of the machine.  The defendant service provider was the same company that distributed the machine and was called to service the machine “on an on-call and as-needed basis”.  Calderon at 626.  Notably, the service provider had a practice of notifying owners of dangerous products and warned plaintiff’s employer about a different “dangerous practice” which had then been corrected.  On those facts, the Appellate Division held that the service provider owed a duty to warn employer of the altered machine because the service provider assumed a role in assuring the safety of the machine.  Id. at 632.

At the Ginarte Law Firm, our attorneys have the knowledge and experience to litigate your personal injury case.  We successfully litigate cases ranging from automobile accidents and slip and fall injuries to products liability cases and construction site accidents.  If you have been injured in accident, contact our law firm today at 1-888-GINARTE or use our online contact form.