This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Micallef (P) was employed as a printing-press operator. For eight months, he had operated a photo-offset press, manufactured by Miehle Co. (D). P discovered a foreign substance in the press and informed his supervisor that he was going to try to remove it. The foreman warned him to be careful. While attempting to remove the foreign substance, P's hand got trapped in the machine. There were no safety guards to prevent such an occurrence, and while his hand was trapped, P could not reach the shut-off button. P was aware of the danger of getting caught in the press. However, it was custom to try to remove the substance without turning the machine off because once turned off, it took at least three hours to resume printing, making it financially unsatisfactory. D had observed the machine in operation and was cognizant of the manner in which these objects were pursued by the employees. Despite this knowledge, D chose not to put sufficient safety guards on the machine to avoid these injuries. P sued D for damages, claiming that D had used a negligent design and had breached an implied warranty. The court found D negligent, but both the trial and appellate courts held that P's contributory negligence barred recovery. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.