 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ray v. Rheem Textile Systems3/19/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a jury verdict of no cause of action in this products liability case. We affirm.
Plaintiff, who had about twenty years of experience in the pressing and dry cleaning business, suffered an injury shortly after beginning work at Best Cleaners, when her hand became trapped in a "New Yorker Ultramatic" garment press. According to plaintiff, as she pushed her hand into a pants pocket to straighten it out, the head of the machine fell down on her arm and locked, entrapping it and exposing it to steam heat. Plaintiff suffered severe burns and had grafts of skin harvested from her leg and transplanted to her left arm, wrist, and hand.
I.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to present "post-manufacture evidence" (specifically post manufacture dealer bulletins and retrofit kits) in support of a post-manufacture failure to warn theory. Plaintiff contends that defendant had such a duty, but even if it did not, defendant voluntarily assumed such a duty and discharged it negligently. We disagree.
Questions regarding duty are for the court to decide as a matter of law and are subject to de novo review. Benejam v Detroit Tigers, Inc, 246 Mich App 645, 648; 635 NW2d 219 (2001).
A.
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on her traditional design defect theory under the risk- utility test. As part of her design defect theory, plaintiff was permitted to argue both that defendant's product was defectively designed from a safety standpoint, and that defendant breached a point-of-manufacture duty to warn.
In Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc, 176 Mich App 181, 187-188; 439 NW2d 326 (1989), after remand 208 Mich App 556; 528 NW2d 787 (1995), this Court explained the appropriate risk- utility test to be utilized in a traditional design defect case:
To summarize, a prima facie case of a design defect premised upon the omission of a safety device requires first a showing of the magnitude of foreseeable risks, including the likelihood of occurrence of the type of accident precipitating the need for the safety device and the severity of injuries sustainable from such an accident. It secondly requires a showing of alternative safety devices and whether those devices would have been effective as a reasonable means of minimizing the foreseeable risk of danger. This latter showing may entail an evaluation of the alternative design in terms of its additional utility as a safety measure and its trade-offs against the costs and effective use of the product. See Prentis [v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670, 687, n 24; 365 NW2d 176 (1984)].
This theory of negligence was described as the more "traditional" one of two in Gregory v Cincinnati, Inc, 450 Mich 1, 11-12; 538 NW2d 325 (1995):
In Michigan, there are two theories that will support a finding of negligent design. The first theory is based on a failure to warn. This theory renders the product defective even if the design chosen does not render the product defective. See Gerkin v Brown & Sehler Co, 177 Mich 45, 57-58; 143 NW 48 (1913); Comstock [v General Motors Corp, 358 Mich 163; 99 NW2d 627 (1959)]; American Law of Products Liability, 3d, ยง 32:2, pp 17-19.
This warning includes the duty to warn about dangers regarding the intended uses of the product, as well as foreseeable misuses. Antcliff v State Employees Credit Union, 414 Mich 624, 637-638; 327 NW2d 814 (1982). If, however, the manufacturer is not aware of the defect until after manufacture or sale, it has a duty to warn upon learning of the defect; if there exists a point-of-manufacture duty to warn, a post-ma
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|