581 F.Supp.3d 912
E.D. Mich.2022Background:
- On November 3, 2018, Jill Klein was killed when a Caterpillar 785B mining hauler crushed her parked pickup at a Carmeuse quarry in Michigan.
- In 2015 Carmeuse purchased a Caterpillar Certified Rebuild/Certified Rebuild Upgrade performed by FABCO CAT pursuant to Caterpillar technical manuals.
- Brent Klein (personal representative) sued Caterpillar alleging negligent repair/modification and products-liability (design defect) claims; pleadings were amended multiple times and Klein sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint clarifying theories.
- Caterpillar moved to dismiss, arguing (1) Michigan law imposes no duty to retrofit/modify and (2) FABCO CAT—not Caterpillar—performed the rebuild, so Caterpillar owed no duty.
- The court found Klein plausibly alleged (a) a voluntary-assumption-of-duty theory for negligent repair/modification and factual questions about agency between Caterpillar and FABCO CAT, and (b) a plausible negligent-design alternative (bumper, obstacle detection, improved cab visibility, audible warnings).
- The court granted leave to amend and denied Caterpillar’s motion to dismiss, allowing the negligence and products-liability claims to proceed.
Issues:
| Issue | Klein's Argument | Caterpillar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend under Rule 15 | Grant leave; Third Amended Complaint clarifies existing allegations and was timely | Opposition arguing futility | Granted — no undue delay, prejudice, or futility shown |
| Effect of amendment on pending motion to dismiss | Court may consider the motion as to the amended pleading | Motion to dismiss original complaint; Caterpillar sought dismissal | Court treated motion as directed to Third Amended Complaint (amendment largely identical) |
| Duty for negligent repair/modification | Caterpillar voluntarily performed or controlled the rebuild and thus assumed a duty to perform nonnegligently; agency for FABCO CAT is a factual issue | No duty because Michigan recognizes no affirmative duty to modify; FABCO CAT (not Caterpillar) performed and was independent | Denied dismissal — voluntary-assumption-of-duty alleged and agency/actual control is a question of fact |
| Products-liability (negligent design) pleading sufficiency | Alleges feasible safer alternatives (full front bumper, obstacle detection, improved cab visibility, audible warnings) that would have prevented death | Design-defect theory insufficient as plead or barred as duty-to-modify claim | Denied dismissal — negligent-design claim plausibly alleged under Michigan law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15 leave to amend should be freely given absent limiting factors)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (apply forum state substantive law in diversity cases)
- Leone v. BMI Refractory Servs., Inc., 893 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2018) (Michigan recognizes voluntary-assumption-of-duty doctrine)
- Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc., 538 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 1995) (framework for negligent-design/risk-utility analysis)
- Prentis v. Yale Mfg., 365 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1984) (risk-utility test for design defects)
- Meretta v. Peach, 491 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (disputed agency questions create factual issues for the jury)