A recent ruling from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has significant implications for product liability cases involving safety features. The court reinstated claims against The Raymond Corporation and Abel Womack, Inc. after a serious accident involving a reach truck. This decision affects how companies design and market their products, particularly regarding optional safety features.
The case, Fegley v. Raymond Corp., was decided on July 24, 2026, and the docket number is 483 CA 25-00823. The plaintiffs, Mark and Sherry Fegley, claimed that a design defect in the reach truck led to a severe injury. The court's ruling highlights the legal standards for product liability and the responsibilities of manufacturers and dealers.
Mark Fegley was operating a reach truck, a type of electric forklift, in a grocery warehouse when the truck suddenly lost power. This malfunction caused the truck to collide with another reach truck, resulting in a crushing injury to Fegley's left lower leg. The reach truck was sold by Abel Womack, Inc., a dealer for The Raymond Corporation, which manufactured the truck.
The Fegleys filed a lawsuit claiming that the reach truck was defectively designed due to the absence of a rear guard or door on the operator compartment. They argued that this lack of a safety feature contributed to the accident and Fegley’s injuries. The case was initially heard in the Supreme Court of Erie County, where the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint.
In their appeal, the Fegleys contested the dismissal of their claims related to the missing safety feature. They argued that the court erred in ruling that the product was not defectively designed. The defendants, on the other hand, cross-appealed, seeking to dismiss claims related to an alleged faulty steering mechanism in the reach truck.
The court ruled in favor of the Fegleys, stating, "A product that lacks an optional safety feature is not defectively designed if... the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available." The court found that it could not be determined as a matter of law that the purchaser was aware of the optional safety feature and chose not to purchase it.
This ruling emphasizes the importance of safety features in product design and the manufacturer's responsibility to inform buyers about these features. The court reinstated the claims regarding the absence of the rear guard or door, allowing the case to proceed. Additionally, the court upheld the portion of the claims related to the faulty steering mechanism, as the defendants had not adequately addressed this issue in their initial motion.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the Fegleys' case. It sets a precedent for how courts may evaluate product liability claims involving optional safety features. Manufacturers and sellers of similar products may need to reassess their practices and ensure they provide clear information about safety features to avoid potential liability.
This decision could lead to increased scrutiny of product designs, particularly in industries where safety is paramount, such as manufacturing and transportation. Companies may need to consider the legal implications of omitting safety features and the potential consequences of failing to inform customers about these options.
Looking ahead, the Fegleys' case will continue in court, allowing them to pursue their claims against The Raymond Corporation and Abel Womack, Inc. The defendants may consider appealing the ruling further, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.
As the legal landscape evolves, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of safety in product design and the responsibilities of manufacturers to their customers.