The Liability of the Manufacturers and Their Conduct in Case of Essay

The Liability of the Manufacturers and Their Conduct in Case of Accidents - Essay Example Courts have considered on a case to case basis the liability of the manufacturers and their conduct in case of accidents. For instance, in the case of Messina v. Clark Equipment, 263 F.2d 291, C.A.2 1959, the Court dismissed the appeal in an action against the manufacturer of the earth mover in order to recover for machine operator’s death. In this case, the machine operator was killed while he was raising the scissor arms and bucket, and they had shut off the motor, and while doing this, he was actually getting out of cab when bucket fell causing him to be crushed between the scissor arms and the cab (Messina v. Clark Equipment 291). The Court dismissed the appeal because there was an absence of showing that there was indeed a hidden defect or concealed danger in earth mover (Messina v. Clark Equipment 291). It reasoned that under the New York law, a manufacturer has no duty to a remote user beyond the duty to keep the article of manufacture free from hidden defects or danger s (Messina v. Clark Equipment 291). Thus, if a remote user such as in this case, 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 (Messina v. Clark Equipment 291). Citing the case of Campo v. Schofield, 301 N.Y. 468, 95 N.E.2d 802 (1950), the Court explained that, â€Å"If a manufacturer does everything necessary to make the machine function properly for the purpose for which it is designed, if the machine is without any latent defect, and if its functioning creates no danger or peril that is not known to the user, then the manufacturer has satisfied the law's demands.†