- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
- Case
- DeCaro v. Somerset Industries, Inc.
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03345
Background
P.C., a twenty-three-month-old child, was seriously injured when her hand became stuck in a fondant sheeter manufactured by defendant Somerset Industries, Inc. and operated on the premises of defendant Café Crisan, Inc. (the bakery). The infant’s guardian ad litem commenced a personal injury action against Somerset and the bakery alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. Somerset then commenced a third-party action against the infant’s mother, Calabria, who was a bakery employee, for common-law indemnity and contribution on a theory of negligent entrustment. Somerset moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment in the third-party action. The Supreme Court, Albany County, granted Somerset summary judgment on its third-party complaint against Calabria. The plaintiff and Calabria both appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division addressed the competing claims regarding the fondant sheeter’s design and the mother’s supervision of the child. On the products liability claims against Somerset, the Court examined whether the fondant sheeter was defective in its design or lacked adequate safety features or warnings to prevent a child from accessing the machine’s moving parts. On the third-party claim against Calabria, the Court analyzed whether the mother’s failure to prevent the child from accessing the machine constituted negligent entrustment or supervision that warranted common-law indemnity in favor of Somerset. The Court weighed the competing responsibilities of the manufacturer to produce a reasonably safe product and the parent to supervise a young child in a commercial kitchen environment with industrial equipment.
Takeaways
Products liability claims involving injuries to young children raise complex questions about the allocation of responsibility between the manufacturer of the instrumentality and the supervising adult. A manufacturer of commercial kitchen equipment may face strict products liability claims when a child is injured by a machine that lacks adequate safety guards or warnings, even when the machine was not designed for use by or around children. At the same time, a parent who brings a toddler into a commercial kitchen with industrial equipment may face contribution or indemnity claims based on inadequate supervision, creating a multi-party allocation of fault that must be resolved by the factfinder.
Why It Matters
This case presents an important intersection of products liability law and parental supervision responsibilities. Manufacturers of commercial equipment should consider whether their products incorporate adequate safety features to prevent injury from foreseeable misuse or access by children, even in commercial settings where children are not expected to be present but may foreseeably enter. The case also highlights the exposure of employees who bring children to the workplace: a parent’s decision to have a young child present near industrial machinery can give rise to contribution and indemnity claims by the equipment manufacturer. For bakeries and similar commercial operations, the case underscores the importance of clear workplace policies regarding children on premises where industrial equipment is in use.