Hill v. Sears, Roebuck and Co
492 Mich. 651
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Marcy Hill’s home exploded after she opened an uncapped natural gas line in the kitchen, having smelled gas earlier that day.
- Electric dryer was installed four years after purchase by retailers; delivery and installation were performed by contractors under contract.
- Gas line end was visibly uncapped; homeowners knew of the line but allegedly did not cap or warn.
- Plaintiffs sued retailers, delivery companies, and installers alleging negligence related to installation and failure to inspect/cap/warn about the gas line.
- Circuit court denied summary disposition; appellate court reversed; Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and reversed, holding no duty existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did installers owe a legal duty to plaintiffs about the uncapped gas line? | Hill argued installers owed a duty to cap or warn about the gas line. | Installers had only a contractual duty to install the dryer; no duty to the gas line. | No duty owed by installers to plaintiffs. |
| Did installation create a new hazard or worsen an existing hazard? | Installation concealed the gas line, creating a new dangerous condition. | Delivery/installation did not create or worsen a hazard; gas line hazard existed already. | No new hazard created and no aggravation of existing hazard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fultz v Union-Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460 (2004) (duty separate from contract when conduct worsens hazard)
- Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157 (2011) (establishes separate common-law duty via undertakings)
- Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124 (2001) (discusses summary disposition standards in duty context)
- Dyer v Trachtman, 470 Mich 45 (2004) (limited duty in IME context guiding limited relationship analysis)
- Glittenberg v Doughboy Recreational Indus (On Rehearing), 441 Mich 379 (1992) ( Restatement-based duty to warn by manufacturer/seller)
- Huhtala v Travelers Ins Co, 401 Mich 118 (1977) (duty to protect consumers apart from contract term)
- Clark v Dalman, 379 Mich 251 (1967) (duty may arise under common law for undertakings)
- Converse v Blumrich, 14 Mich 109 (1866) (constructive notice concept applied to ordinary diligence)