Khalani Carr v. Roger a Reed Inc
330115
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (DTE employee) was burned when paraffin wax ignited in a manhole while he was melting/using wax to clean electrical components; he sued suppliers alleging failure to warn about unusual flammability.
- Two suppliers provided visually identical wax product lines to DTE: Keller Heartt (large slabs ~19×12×1.5 in, wrapped in brown paper) and Reed (small bricks ~3.5×3.5×0.75 in).
- At the jobsite a kettle already contained wax when Williamson added more and handed it to plaintiff; fire ignited the wax and injured plaintiff.
- Evidence (employee testimony, service-center inventory, and scene photographs) showed the wax at the scene matched Keller Heartt’s large-block product, not Reed’s smaller bricks.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for both suppliers for lack of evidence tying either specifically to the wax that caused the injury; on appeal the court reversed dismissal as to Keller Heartt and affirmed dismissal as to Reed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence that Keller Heartt supplied the wax that caused the injury | Evidence (wrapping, block size at service center, photos, witness testimony) makes it more likely than not Keller Heartt wax was used | Keller Heartt relied on a post‑deposition affidavit conceding uncertainty and argued lack of proof | Reversed dismissal as to Keller Heartt; record permits a jury to find Keller Heartt more likely than not supplied the wax |
| Whether there is sufficient evidence that Reed supplied the wax that caused the injury | Plaintiff argued alternative liability because Reed or Keller Heartt must have supplied the wax in kettle | Reed argued there is no evidence its small‑brick product was present at the jobsite/truck | Affirmed dismissal as to Reed; no evidence making it more likely than not Reed wax was used |
| Whether plaintiff can invoke alternative liability (Abel) to shift burden to defendants | Plaintiff contended alternative liability applies because two manufacturers produced the same product and it’s unclear which caused the injury | Reed and others argued traditional causation rules apply and plaintiff can pursue Keller Heartt under traditional tort principles | Alternative liability rejected: plaintiff had a viable traditional‑tort claim against Keller Heartt, so Abel doctrine not applied |
| Whether non‑party fault notices for Reed are permissible at trial/remand | Plaintiff/Keller Heartt might seek to assess fault against Reed as a non‑party | Reed argued lack of evidence prevents assessment against it | Court held assessment against Reed would be improper because no reasonable jury could find Reed at fault; trial court to address other defenses (e.g., sophisticated user) on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (1994) (plaintiff must show “more likely than not” causation; mere possibility is insufficient)
- Klein v. HP Pelzer Auto Sys., Inc., 306 Mich App 67 (2014) (summary‑disposition standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 481 Mich 419 (2008) (clarifies genuine‑issue standard under summary judgment review)
- Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 418 Mich 311 (1984) (alternative liability doctrine where multiple defendants made identical products and causation cannot be assigned)
- Heydon v. Media One of Southeast Mich., Inc., 275 Mich App 267 (2007) (appellate courts need not decide issues the trial court did not address)
- Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 483 Mich 18 (2009) (statutory standard for obtaining assessment of fault against non‑party)
- People v. Hermiz, 462 Mich 71 (2000) (discusses judicial economy as basis for reviewing issues not raised by parties)