 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ray v. Rheem Textile Systems3/19/2002
party may be under a legal duty when it voluntarily assumes a function that it is not legally required to perform" and " nce a duty is voluntarily assumed, it must be performed with some degree of skill and care." Id. It is these propositions upon which plaintiff relies.
Plaintiff contends that defendant is liable because it voluntarily "began a campaign to warn of dangers associated with the actual use of its products and to inform of new technology that could be used to make its products less dangerous." The bulletins demonstrate that defendant undertook to urge its dealers to strongly encourage their customers to purchase available safety devices on new or rebuilt presses and to retrofit old presses. The bulletins do not, however, establish that defendant undertook to locate and notify all current owners of presses manufactured years before of the need and availability of new safety devices, or of measures necessary to make the old presses safe. There was no evidence that defendant initiated a recall. The bulletins only support that defendant urged its dealers to notify press owners of the advisability and availability of there products.
II.
Next, plaintiff argues that the court erred by instructing the jury that defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to warn of risks which are obvious and patent to all. We disagree.
Claims of alleged instructional error are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Grow v W A Thomas Co, 236 Mich App 696, 702; 601 NW2d 426 (1999). Jury instructions are reviewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly apprised the jury of the applicable law and the issues to be tried in the case. Id. This Court will not reverse a trial court's decision regarding supplemental instructions unless failure to vacate the verdict would be inconsistent with substantial justice. Id.
The revisions to the product liability statute that took effect in 1996 limit the duty to warn. The accident which is the subject of this case occurred on October 10, 1995. This lawsuit was filed in October 1998. 1995 PA 249 (specifically, MCL 600.2948) applies to cases filed on or after the effective date of the amendatory act, which was March 28, 1996. See Historical and Statutory Note following MCL 600.2925d. Therefore, the 1995 amendments to the Product Liability Act apply.
MCL 600.2948, which was added as a part of the amendments, provides in pertinent part:
(2) A defendant is not liable for failure to warn of a material risk that is or should be obvious to a reasonably prudent product user or a material risk that is or should be a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same or similar position as the person upon whose injury or death the claim is based in a product liability action. [Emphasis added.]
The jury in this case was instructed that defendant owed no duty to warn of risks which were "obvious and patent to all." This instruction was thus more favorable to plaintiff than what is provided in MCL 600.2948. Although plaintiff argues that the statute is not intended to apply where a simple tool is not involved, the statute contains no such language.
Affirmed.
Peter D. O'Connell
Helene N. White
Jessica R. Cooper
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.
|
|