The following excerpt is from Raymo v. Textron, Inc., 89 F.3d 826 (2nd Cir. 1995):
Second, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants, see Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332, 343 (2d Cir.1993), a juror could reasonably conclude that the manure spreader's design was sufficiently safe, that someone other than the defendants had the duty of assembling the manure spreader, that the danger of an exposed, rotating power takeoff shaft was obvious, and that the manure spreader was fit for its intended purpose.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.