Using the Sample Case Briefs provided and Appendix A of the textbook, submit a Case Brief on one of the following cases from Chapter 7:

Case 7.3 VeRost v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 124 AD.3d 1219,1 N.Y.S. 3d 589 (2015) 7-4a) A defer in rece tions p Case manul compr Background and Facts Drew VeRost was employed at a manufacturing facility in Buffalo, New York, owned by Nuttall Gea, LLC. While operating a forklift at Nuttall's facility, VeRost climbed out of the seat and attempted to engage a lever on the vehicle. As he stood on the front of the forklift and reached for the lever with his hand, he inadvertently stepend on the vehicle's gearshift. The activated gears caused part of the forklift to move backward, injuring him. He filed a suit in a New York state court against the forklift's maker, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forkit America, Inc., and others, asserting claims in product liability. The defendants established that the vehicle had been manufactured with a safety switch that would have prevented the accident had it not been disabled after delivery to Nuttall. The court issued a summary judgment in the defendants' favor. VeRost appealed. In the Language of the Court MEMORANDUM to ext orous Supre a mal (a bal liabili a con medi tioni factu make mark com ness exte ity inju The forklift in question was manufactured by defendant Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. (MCFA), and sold new to Nuttall Gear by defendants Buffalo Lift Trucks, Inc. (Buffalo Lift) and Mullen Industrial Handling Corp. (Mullen). The forklift as manufactured was equipped with a scat safety switch that would render the forklift inoperable if the operator was not in the driver's seat. At the time of the accident, however, someone had intentionally disabled the safety switch by installing a "jumper wire" under the seat of the forklift. As a result, the forklift still had power when the operator was not in the driver's seat of the 10 forklifts owned by Nuttall Gear, seven had "jumper wires installed that disabled the safety switches. The complaint asserts causes of action against MCFA, Buffalo Lift and Mullen sounding in strict products liability, alleging, inter alia among other things"), that the forklift was defectively designed and that those defendants failed to provide adequate warnings for the safe operation, maintenance repair and servicing of the forklift." *** Following discovery, the defendants each moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, contending that the forklift was safe when it was manufactured and delivered to Nuttall Gear, and that it was thereafter rendered unsafe by a third party who deactivated the safety switch.*[The Supreme Court of New Yorkl granted the motions and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, and this appeal ensued. We conclude that the court properly granted the motions of the defendants. *** www, who has design and produced a safe product, will not be liable for injuries rewline from what alienations or modifications of the produce by a third party which der the product defective or therwie f. Here, the defendants established as a matter of law that the forklift was not defectively designed by establishing that, when it was manufactured and delivered to Nuttall Gear, it had a safety switch that would have prevented plaintiff's accident, and a third party thereafter made a substantial modification to the forklift by disabling the safety switch. (Emphasis added.] me and the prome properly and CHAPTER 7 Strict Liability and Product Liability 145 Case 7.3 Continued Decision and Remedy The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment in Mitsubishi's favor. To succeed in an action based on product liability, the goods at issue must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained. VeRost could not meet this requirement. Critical Thinking Legal Environment Could VeRost succeed in an action against Nuttall, alleging that the company's failure to maintain the forklift in a safe condition constituted negligence? Discuss