95 N.E.2d 802 (N.Y. 1950)
Plaintiff Campo was working on his son’s farm in November 1945 when he became injured while operating an onion-topping machine manufactured by the defendants.1 He was feeding onions into the machine when his hands were caught in the revolving steel rollers, leading to the amputation of both hands.2
The machine was mounted on wheels and powered by a tractor, featuring four hard steel rollers approximately four feet long that performed the cutting through revolving and grinding action.3 Starting or stopping the machine required shifting gears on the tractor located about fifteen feet from the operator’s position.4 The machine had been sold to Henry Benthin, and there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.5
In his complaint, supplemented by a bill of particulars, Campo alleged that the defendants had negligently manufactured and designed the machine by omitting any guards to prevent contact with the rollers and by failing to provide a stopping device that could have been used to halt the rollers before serious injury occurred.6 He further claimed that the defendants had impliedly represented the machine as properly designed and safe for use.7
The defendants challenged the complaint’s sufficiency through a motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.8 The Appellate Division ruled that the complaint did not state a cause of action, bringing the matter before the New York Court of Appeals.9
Whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action in negligence against the manufacturers for injuries sustained while using the onion-topping machine?10
The manufacturer of a machine or any other article, dangerous because of the way in which it functions, and patently so, owes to those who use it a duty merely to make it free from latent defects and concealed dangers. Accordingly, if a remote user sues a manufacturer of an article for injuries suffered, he must allege and prove the existence of a latent defect or a danger not known to plaintiff or other users.11
No. The complaint alleges that defendants negligently failed to equip the onion-topping machine with guards or a stopping device, yet it contains no recital of any latent defect or concealed danger unknown to the plaintiff.12 The established facts show that plaintiff Campo was feeding onions into the machine on his son's farm when his hands became caught in the revolving steel rollers, that the machine consisted of four hard steel rollers set in an open rectangular frame, and that the cutting action occurred through visible revolving and grinding.13 No allegation states that the absence of guards was unknown to plaintiff or that defendants should have foreseen a hidden peril to users performing the intended operation.14 Because the danger from contact with the exposed rollers was obvious and patent, the manufacturer owed no further duty.15
The complaint fails to state a cause of action in negligence and was properly dismissed.16