 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dobrik v. Bombardier12/26/2000
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff Kenneth Dobrik appeals by right from the circuit court order granting summary disposition of his product liability claim against defendant Bombardier, Inc. We affirm.
Plaintiff was injured while riding a 1995 Sea-Doo model XP personal watercraft manufactured by defendant Bombardier, and purchased by plaintiff as new from defendant Anderson Sales and Service in April 1995. According to plaintiff, the cause of his injury was the failure of the craft's steering system which resulted in his inability to turn the craft and avoid striking a dock.
Following this accident, plaintiff filed suit against both Bombardier and Anderson Sales, alleging that his injuries were the result of negligent design, manufacture, and marketing of the 1995 Sea-Doo XP's steering system. As part of discovery in this matter, expert representatives from each party performed a post-accident inspection of plaintiff 's 1995 XP. During this inspection, gouges in the internal surface area of the steering stem arm, as well as the steering stem itself, were found. Both parties' experts indicated that although no screws were found at the time of the inspection, these gouges were consistent with marks which would have been created by driving drywall screws in between the craft's steering stem and steering stem arm. Bombardier's expert also noted that these gouges had cut into the key of the steering stem arm, causing substantial damage to the steering system's components and resulting in "the inability of the steering mechanism to fully function." During his deposition in this matter, plaintiff acknowledged that he drove two drywall screws into the steering stem the summer before his accident, but asserted that he had the steering system replaced by Anderson Sales later that same year. He had not asked Anderson Sales which parts of the system were replaced.
Following inspection of the Sea-Doo, Bombardier filed a motion for summary disposition, MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). Bombardier argued that because the evidence showed that plaintiff's injuries were caused by damage caused by plaintiff 's alteration of the XP's steering system, it was not liable to plaintiff because the alteration was not reasonably foreseeable. The trial court agreed that the alteration by plaintiff was not foreseeable and granted summary disposition on that ground.
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is subject to de novo review. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). In order to defeat a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a plaintiff must bring forth some evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact. With respect to a suit for product liability, this entails production of admissible evidence showing that the defendant supplied a product that was defective and that the defect caused the injury. Auto Club Ins Ass'n v General Motors Corp, 217 Mich App 594, 604; 552 NW2d 523 (1996). A plaintiff may establish its case by circumstantial and direct evidence, but mere speculation and conjecture are insufficient to meet the burden imposed. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 165; 516 NW2d 475 (1994). There must be more than a mere possibility that defendant's unreasonable conduct caused the injury. Id. We agree with the trial court that the evidence proffered by plaintiff here did not establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of a design or manufacturing defect which caused his injuries.
Plaintiff presented evidence of a warranty bulletin involving a different watercraft, the 1995 HX model. Even accepting arguendo as true plaintiff 's claim that Bombardier redesigned
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|