 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lonsby v. Powerscreen12/10/2002
UNPUBLISHED
In this products liability and intentional tort case, plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff claims that defendants Powerscreen USA, Powerscreen International, Powerscreen International Distribution, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Lukens were liable for injuries he sustained when his arm was severed by the conveyor belt of a crushing and sorting machine ("machine"). Plaintiff also claimed in the lower court that because defendant Torello specifically intended his injury, his tort claim fell outside the Worker 's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq. We affirm.
This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on summary disposition de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Where, as here, the motion was granted under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence submitted to the trial court in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Michigan Educational Employees Mutual Ins Co v Turow, 242 Mich App 112, 114; 617 NW2d 725 (2000); Unisys Corp v Comm'r of Ins, 236 Mich App 686, 689; 601 NW2d 155 (1999). If the substantively admissible evidence does not create a genuine issue on any material fact, judgment must be entered for the moving party. Maiden, supra.
I. Defendants Lukens, Bethlehem, Powerscreen International and Powerscreen International Distribution
We initially note that plaintiff has abandoned his claim against defendant Lukens and its successor, Bethlehem, by not addressing why the trial court erred in dismissing those defendants. This Court will not search for legal authority to support a party's position, and where a party fails to cite any supporting legal authority for its position, the issue is effectively abandoned. Schellenberg v Rochester Elks, 228 Mich App 20, 49; 577 NW2d 163 (1998).
Additionally, plaintiff did not present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that Powerscreen International or Powerscreen International Distribution were involved in the production of the crushing and sorting machine. Plaintiff brought forward no evidence showing a relationship between these two Powerscreen companies and Powerscreen USA, which made a component part to the machine. Because plaintiff merely rested on the allegations contained in his pleadings, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of these two defendants. See MCR 2.116(G)(4); Karbel v Comerica Bank, 247 Mich App 90, 97; 635 NW2d 69 (2001).
II. Defendant Powerscreen USA
Plaintiff also claims that Powerscreen USA was involved in the "production" of the machine and is thus liable for his injuries. A products liability action is "an action based on a legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or damage to property caused by or resulting from the production of a product." MCL 600.2945(h). A "product" is defined as "any and all component parts to a product." MCL 600.2945(g). Key to resolution of this case is the statutory term "production," which is defined as "manufacture, construction, design, formulation, development of standards, preparation, processing, assembly, inspection, testing, listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or labeling." MCL 600.2945(i).
We initially recognize that plaintiff cannot prevail on the basis of Powerscreen USA's production of the powerscreen, because it is uncontested that plaintiff was injured on a conveyor belt that w
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|