The IAS Court correctly held that defendant's limited involvement in facilitating the sale of the allegedly defective machine that caused plaintiff's injury, a one-time situation in which defendant effectively brokered the sale of the machine from a previous owner to plaintiff's employer, imposed no duty upon defendant to make sure the machine was safe or to warn about potential hazards "that [were] not obvious or readily discernible" (Sukljian v Ross & Son Co.
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
BARNES v. PINE TREE MACH.
245 A.D.2d 19 (1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 450
John H. Barnes et al., Appellants, v. Pine Tree Machinery, Defendant, and Timpson Trading Corp., Respondent. (And a Third- and Second Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 4, 1997
December 4, 1997
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
