Samir H Hakkani v. Powerhouse Gym-Rochester Inc
326320
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 17, 2016Background
- Samir and Deborah Hakkani were gym members; on Dec. 20, 2011 Samir used a Cybex 5235 plate‑loaded squat press at Powerhouse Gym and sustained severe injury when the foot plate collapsed onto his right leg.
- Samir testified he repeatedly loaded the machine to its 1,000 lb max, engaged the locking mechanism (heard a click), placed his left foot on the floor, then the plate suddenly crashed down.
- Plaintiffs sued Powerhouse (gym) for negligence and gross negligence; later amended to add Cybex (manufacturer) for negligence and breach of warranty.
- Powerhouse moved for summary disposition; trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ negligence claim based on a membership waiver and dismissed gross‑negligence claims for lack of causation evidence.
- After Powerhouse’s dismissal, Cybex moved for summary disposition arguing plaintiffs produced no evidence of a defect or causation; plaintiffs relied on expert Dr. Harold Josephs, who tested an exemplar press and reported a ‘‘false engagement’’ locking failure.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal as to Powerhouse but reversed as to Cybex, finding a genuine factual dispute on design defect and causation and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Powerhouse’s conduct rose to gross negligence | Powerhouse ignored owner’s manual warnings by not anchoring the press and placing it on uneven flooring, showing reckless disregard | Powerhouse asserted lack of evidence that failure to anchor or uneven floor caused the injury; discovery closed without evidentiary support | Affirmed dismissal as to Powerhouse: no evidence of causation or what further discovery would produce; gross negligence not shown |
| Whether Cybex is liable for a defective design causing the injury | Cybex squat press had a latent defect: “false engagement” of the locking mechanism that can disengage and cause sudden collapse (supported by expert testing) | Cybex argued plaintiffs failed to establish a defect or cause in fact linking any defect to the injury | Reversed dismissal as to Cybex: expert testimony plus plaintiff’s deposition create a genuine issue of material fact on defect and causation; remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (standards for de novo review of summary disposition)
- Greene v. A P Prods., Ltd., 475 Mich. 502 (materials to consider on MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Xu v. Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263 (definition of gross negligence)
- Woodman v. Kera, LLC, 280 Mich. App. 125 (ordinary negligence insufficient to show gross negligence)
- Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley, 259 Mich. App. 1 (opposing party must show further discovery reasonably likely to uncover supporting facts)