Charles Lavin v. Eduardo Conte, 332165

Background

Vanessa Lavin fell from an elevated pontoon boat while assisting to install a vinyl canopy on a NuCraft canopy frame attached to a NuCraft boat hoist; she suffered a catastrophic spinal injury and became quadriplegic.
Charles Lavin purchased the hoist and canopy frame from NuCraft; the vinyl canopy was supplied by a third party but attached via NuCraft’s designed method. No canopy assembly instructions were provided with the vinyl.
NuCraft’s VP (Wiltse) gave general advice (raise the boat high; avoid wind); NuCraft included warning stickers on the hoist advising not to occupy or work on the boat while hoist is raised.
Plaintiffs’ expert (Eckhardt) proposed an alternative design placing canopy-support posts on the movable lift bed so installation could be done from ground level and testified it would be economically feasible. He had not identified any manufacturer using that design or shown it existed when the subject unit was made.
Trial court granted summary disposition for NuCraft (MCR 2.116(C)(10)), finding plaintiffs failed to show a legally adequate safer alternative and that the risk of falling while installing a canopy was obvious and/or warned against. Plaintiffs’ derivative claims (emotional distress, loss of consortium) were also dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Design defect (negligent design) — was product defectively designed or was there a practical, feasible safer alternative?	Eckhardt’s design (movable posts on lift bed) was a safer, practical, and economically feasible alternative that would have prevented harm.	No evidence that Eckhardt’s alternative existed or was available and economically feasible when the unit was manufactured; many hoists use similar designs and the subject unit functioned as intended.	Granted NuCraft summary disposition — plaintiffs failed to show the alternative was developed, available, and economically feasible when the unit left manufacturer’s control.
Failure to warn — did NuCraft fail to warn of material risks (intended uses and foreseeable misuses)?	NuCraft failed to warn of the particular risk here (falling while installing the canopy); risk was not obvious because injury resulted from working at height rather than equipment failure.	The risk of falling while working on an elevated boat is obvious/common knowledge; NuCraft placed warning stickers advising not to occupy or work on the boat while hoist is raised.	Granted NuCraft summary disposition — the risk was obvious/common knowledge and NuCraft’s warnings addressed the hazard.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress (Charles Lavin)	Charles can maintain NIED for witnessing his wife’s injury caused by NuCraft’s negligence.	NIED is derivative of the injured party’s claim and requires negligent conduct causing the physical injury; underlying negligence claims failed.	Denied — derivative claim fails because Vanessa’s negligence claims failed.
Loss of consortium (Charles Lavin)	Recovery for loss of consortium is available separately from spouse’s recovery.	Consortium is derivative of injured spouse’s recovery; no recovery if primary claim fails.	Denied — derivative claim fails because Vanessa’s negligence claims failed.

Key Cases Cited

Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standards for summary disposition review)
Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc., 450 Mich. 1 (two theories for negligent design: risk-utility and failure-to-warn)
Owens v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 414 Mich. 413 (prima facie proof requirements for negligent design; need data on risks and feasible alternatives)
Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co., 421 Mich. 670 (manufacturers are not insurers; limits on absolute liability)
Greene v. AP Prod., Ltd., 475 Mich. 502 (no duty to warn when risk is obvious or common knowledge)
Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4 (NIED requires physical injury proximately caused by defendant’s negligence)
Berryman v. K Mart Corp., 193 Mich. App. 88 (loss of consortium is derivative of injured spouse’s recovery)