Electrician Loses Case Against Display Box Designer Where Glass Panel Crushed His Hand as He Was Trying to Remove it

Case: Hartnett v. Chanel, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Date: 7/10/12

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn and Queens; Queens injury attorney)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

Plaintiff's $1.6 Million Product Liability Jury Verdict Tossed Because She Had Wrong Expert at Trial

CASE DISMISSED ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR NO NOTICE; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ELECTRIC SHOCK WALKING INTO STORE

ACCIDENT VICTIM'S PERSONAL INJURY BURN CASE ALLOWED TO PROCEED; SHE CLAIMS THAT BACARDI "151" RUM IS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

**************************************************

Facts: In November, 2006, Bloomingdale's had this plaintiff, an electrician, wiring a fire alarm. As part of the work, he ran wires through a display that weighed 146 pounds.

The display was located in the Chanel boutique. Plaintiff was messing around with the display case and trying to pry it open with a screwdriver. His accident occurred when he couldn't open the display, instead a glass panel broke loose from the display box and crushed his hand. Before this accident, the box had been in use for two years with no problems.

This accident victim found very ambitious attorneys who sued everyone possible, except for his employer, Bloomingdale's.

So defendants Chanel and Display Craft (who made the case) have moved for summary judgment, claiming they did nothing wrong since the display box wasn't defective.

Plaintiff's expert argued that the case should have had a hinge holding in the glass panel instead of channel grooves and required a warning label.

Held: No manufacturing flaw; no design flaw; no warning required. Plaintiff caused his own accident and injury. Defendants are granted summary judgment and case is dismissed.

Categories