Allocating responsibility to protect the plaintiff from plaintiff's own fault.

Case: Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp.

Parties: Plaintiff - Bexiga (father of the minor employee)

Defendant - (manufacturer of the machine)

Procedural History: Trial court dismissed the suit; appellate division affirmed.
Now before NJ Supreme court.

Facts: Minor employed, operating a machine which ended up crushing minor's hand,
which resulted in loss of fingers and deformity. Minor's job was to put a disc on
the machine, press a pedal, and the machine would punch two holes into the disc.
Minor was doing this, and at one point saw that the disc was not properly in
place, he brought his hand to the machine to fix it, and at that point, his foot
pressed the pedal, which caused the machine to cut his hand. Father sued the
manufacturer of the machine on contributory negligence. An expert explained there
were safety devices available in the industry to protect from this type of
accident. Defendant says plaintiff contributorily negligent because he stuck his
hand in, and pressed the pedal himself, so he did it to himself. Defendant says as
a matter of law, plaintiff is contributorily negligent.

Issue: Can the defendants use contributory negligence as a defense?

Holding: Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Reasoning: The negligence of the plaintiff was the exact situation that the
safety devices were designed to prevent from happening. Court says it wouldn't
make sense to say that defendant has a duty to install the safety devices, but
wouldn’t be liable for a breach of that duty. So they conclude that contributory
negligence as a defense is not available. Manufacturer should know this type of
accident can happen, and so has a duty to protect against it by installing safety
devices.

RULE: Defendant had a special duty to protect the plaintiff from plaintiff's own
fault.

Notes

• Repetitive motions of the plaintiff - lead plaintiff to press the pedal, out of
habit.

• Why is manufacturer responsible for protecting users of their machine against

their own negligence?
○ Sometimes, there is a statute requiring heightened duty
○ Here, no statute. - what are the factors to look for, for special duty?
§ Risks are not reciprocal - plaintiffs conduct endangering plaintiff
but no one else
□ Whether the risks are reciprocal (does the plaintiff's fault
impose risk on others/defendant?)
§ Manufacturer knows how machine is used, and the repetition can cause
harm
□ Whether the defendant knows of limitations regarding the
plaintiff's ability to exercising care for him/herself
○ If only one factor present, less strong case, but you can still use it.