Case Name: Edward Wider, Appellant, v. Family Gard, Inc., et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-10-01
Citations: 197 A.D.2d 892
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Wider, Appellant, v Family Gard, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 197
Pages: 892–892

Head Matter:
Edward Wider, Appellant, v Family Gard, Inc., et al., Respondents.
[602 NYS2d 292]

Opinion:
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The only negligence attributed to defendants is that they supplied a battery operated smoke detector that had no device to warn plaintiff when there was no battery in the detector. The danger of maintaining a smoke detector without a battery in place is obvious. Thus, defendants owed plaintiff no duty to warn him that the detector would not work without a battery (see, Trivino v Jamesway Corp., 148 AD2d 851, 853; Laaperi v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 787 F2d 726). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.