MacDowall v. Koehring Basic Construction Equipment
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T & N PLC (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Duffy v. County of Chautauqua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Sporbert v. Lenox (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Massie v. Commercial Envelope Manufacturing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Cacciolo v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Jacobs v. Larry Biscornet, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Permuy v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Cincotta v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Anders v. Segall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Lopez v. Precision Papers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Buscaglia v. Olka (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Williams v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Morell v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Roger v. Huggins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Brookman v. Public Service Tire Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Curry v. Moser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- O'Connor v. G&R Packing Co. (N.Y. 1981)
- Juiditta v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Carpino v. Baker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. In view of the concession by Koehring’s trial counsel that the indemnity clause presented a jury question only if the underlying action was "submitted to the jury on a matter of something other than design”, it was not error for the Trial Judge, who later charged the jury on design negligence only, to dismiss the third-party complaint.
Nor is there any basis for reversal of the judgment in favor of plaintiff in the main action. There is evidence in the record from which the jury could have found that there was no design mechanism to hold the seat other than a cotter pin, that the cotter pin could come out without the operator being aware of it, that if the spring mechanism did not elevate the seat it would have to be lifted manually, that with the cotter pin out the seat could be removed, that dirt could get into the pipe holding the spring mechanism and restrict its movement, that with the seat removed and no other restraint the spring was an instrument of danger and that a positive restraint could have been designed and applied to the seat with relatively little cost in relation to the value of the machine. That
On the issue of contributory negligence, which is a jury question in all but the clearest cases (Wartels v County Asphalt, 29 NY2d 372), there was likewise no error for there was evidence that plaintiff was unaware of the presence of the spring or of its pressure and that when the seat was removed it could only be seen if one leaned back.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.