*1 OWENS v ALLIS-CHALMERSCORPORATION 3, 1978, January No. 31521. Submitted at Detroit. Docket Decided 8,May appeal applied 1978. Leave to for. Owens, Owens, Jr., Sallie M. administratrix of the estate of Dan deceased, brought against Corpo- an action the Allis-Chalmers products liability seeking ration on a to recover for husband, the death of her who killed when a was Wayne manufactured the defendant overturned. The Circuit Court, Gilmore, J., granted Horace W. the defendant’s motion plaintiffs proofs for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the judgment appeals. and a for defendant was entered. Plaintiff Held: duty provide adequate warnings 1. Manufacturers have a potential users of their of the latent risks product design. adequacy their selection of warning particular under the circumstances of a question is a for resolution the trier of fact. following plaintiff 2. Evidence of the must be for a
to establish a of fact as to a manufacturer’s breach of (1) duty products liability litigation: that the particular design conformity industry design not in was with standards, design guidelines an authoritative association, voluntary by legislative criteria set governmental regulation; other choice of the manufacturer carries with it a latent risk of and the [2, [5] [4] [3] [7] [6] [1] Manufacturer’s or seller’s Manufacturer’s or seller’s 63 Am Jur 63 Am Jur 7] 63 Am Jur 63 Am Jur 5 Am Jur 5 Am Jur as 63 Am Jur affecting for 2d, Appeal 2d, Appeal 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, References his product-caused injury. 2d, Products Products Products Products Products and Error 849. and Error 886. Liability Liability Liability Liability for Points in Headnotes duty duty Liability product-caused injury. as to § § 71.§ § §§ § give 206. 53. 76 ALR2d 91. §§ 71-73. product design warning regarding product 63. 76 ALR2d as affecting 9. his Owens v Allis-Chalmers adequately manufacturer has not communicated the nature of product. that risk to users of the proper 3. The trial court’s directed verdict was since the presented by plaintiff evidence raised neither a *2 design conformity with established standards nor a risk of injury readily perceived by plaintiff’s that would not be decedent, experienced operator. an forklift
Affirmed. J., concurred, holding Kaufman, N. J. product liability suit implied warranty theory requires proof based on an of a defect manufacturing injury by resulting in or caused or defect; by under this a defect is established proof intended, reasonably is not fit for its anticipated reasonably or foreseeable use. Opinion of the Court Liability—Cause 1. Action—Torts—Products of Action—Ele- Liability—Breach Warranty. ments—Strict requisite products elements for a cause of action for upon congruent based strict in tort are to those for warranty. breach of Liability—Mechanical '2. Manufactures—Products Devices—In- juries—Defects in Machine. required Manufacturers are not to make mechanical devices proof; injury accident the fact that an results from the use of a ipso machine does not facto mean that the machine is defective. Liability—Manufactures—Latent Risks—Warnings— 3. Products Design. Adequacy—Product duty provide adequate warnings Manufacturers have a potential injury users of their of the latent risks of by product design; their adequacy selection of warning particular under the circumstances of a case is a question for resolution the trier of fact. Fact—Design Liability—Evidence—Questions 4. Products De- Duty. fects—Breach following presented plaintiff Evidence of the must be for a establish a of fact as to a manufacturer’s breach of (1) duty products liability litigation: in a particular design conformity industry design was not in with standards, design guidelines an authoritative association, voluntary by legislative criteria set governmental regulation; other choice the manufacturer carries with it a latent risk of and the adequately manufacturer has not communicated the nature of product. that risk to users of the Appeal 5. and Error—Motions—Directed Verdict—Evidence— Light Nonmoving Party. Most Favorable Appeals reviewing grant The Court of a trial court’s of a directed verdict motion for a should consider the evidence light nonmoving party. in a most favorable to the Liability—Directed Verdict—Design Defects—Appeal 6. Products and Error.
A trial court’s directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a product liability alleged design action based on an defect in a proper presented by forklift was plain- where the evidence design conformity tiff raised neither a with estab- lished readily standards nor a risk of that would not be perceived decedent, plaintiffs experienced operator.
Concurrence N. J. Liability—Implied Warranty—Proof 7. Products *3 of Defects—In- jury. product liability implied A warranty suit theory based requires proof manufacturing of a defect in and resulting defect; caused a defect is theory proof established under this is not reasonably intended, anticipated reasonably ñt for its fore- seeable use. Hurwitz & Karp, plaintiff.
Garan, Lucow, Miller, Lehman, Seward & (Gromek Cooper Bendure, & counsel), for de- fendant. Bashara, J.,
Before: P. and H. Gillis and N. J. JJ. Bashara, P. J. This is an appeal by plaintiff from a directed verdict granted to defendant at the conclusion of plaintiffs proofs. On a liability, plaintiff sought for the recovery v Allis-Chalmers Owens Opinion op the Court husband, death of killed her who was when the operating employer was for his forklift truck he crushing overturned, protective guard. overhead, his skull with No one Decedent witnessed occurrence. re- ported job to his was instructed drive a plant employer’s prop- forklift to another on his erty. employees, left, Moments he after other roadway location, route over the same to the same pinned discovered decedent under the overhead guard appeared, it the forklift. As then roadway, forklift off had traveled struck a post, and concrete-filled turned over onto its side. The forklift was manufactured defendant and with sold employer by other vehicles to the decedent’s
one defendant’s dealers. Plaintiff alleged negligent that defendant was in the forklift, that the defective constituted warranty, a breach of and that defendant was liable under Design doctrine of strict in tort. allegations predicated princi- were pally upon the absence driver restraints on the protective vehicle, seat such as belts or a enclo- sure. expert plaintiff’s trial,
At witness testified at length inadequacy stability about the of the static gener- tests utilized the forklift manufacturers ally. opinion dynamic stability His was tests handling were essential to ascertain the true char- proper acteristics of forklift vehicles technology so developed. could be He also as to testified the risks of *4 apparatus the absence of some driver restraint equipped guard. in forklifts opined with an overhead He handling qualities that, the unstable high probability of a forklift and the concomitant system rollovers, of form some of driver restraint 83 74 Mich 78 designed necessary properly a forklift. for was expert Notably, cross-examination, the on witness any industry legis- specify standard, unable to was government regulation requir- enactment, lative ing of a driver restraint device on the installation testing establishing dynamic stability forklifts requirements. was no there evidence The trial court concluded negligent failing was to that defendant show testing designing for some standard adhere to Further, the court found the trial its forklifts. any presented de- did not establish that evidence causally related the forklift was fect in decedent’s death. question of whether the
Plaintiff claims designed defectively should have been forklift was jury. urges expert that to the She submitted testimony, stating a driver restraint device prevented death, is have decedent’s would as to the of fact itself sufficient raise design. defective may be narrowed
Our discussion this making This Court has observations. number requisite recognized cause elements upon in tort are of action based strict warranty. congruent Wil- those for breach App 559, Co, 63 Mich v The Detroit Edison liams (1975), 702, lv den 395 Mich 234 NW2d 707 Corp, Chrysler See also Johnson v App 571-572 535-536; Mich Therefore, the lv den redundancy, since count is a mere strict recovery equally action for available warranty. breach carefully
Further, the evi- have reviewed we negli- by plaintiff claim dence gence design, especially the exten- and defective *5 79 Owens v Allis-Chalmers testimony plaintiffs expert sive witness. That are, nature, evidence showed that forklifts their nothing vehicles. unstable There is to show how stability may enhanced, the vehicles’ be the characteristics mandated the vehicles’ Merely injury intended uses. because results ipso from the use of a machine does not facto mean that the machine is defective. Manufactur- required ers are not to make mechanical devices "accident-proof Equip- ”. Parsonson v Construction Co, ment 64-65; 191 NW2d 466 (1971). At the commencement discussion, of this we important emphasize litigation deem it that this does involve a claim that the fatal part resulted from some machine that malfunc- as a tioned result of a defect in its manufacture. responsibility finding of the trier fact for defect and causation as matter fact Fox, well-established that context. Caldwell v (1975). Kup- 394 401; Mich 231 46 also See Ford, Inc, kowski v 395 Avis Mich 235 NW2d 324 prod-
When courts are confronted with claims of geometric defects, uct there is a increase in complexity of the issues. Product legal multi-faceted, choices are or as one writer polycentric.1 it, is, has termed That choices involve such considerations as the intended use utility product, of the cost constraints dictated marketplace and the manufacturer’s com- petitive position, safety standards established government industry regulation and the 1 Henderson, See Judicial Review of De Manufacturers’ Conscious sign Adjudication, Choices: The Limits of 73 Colum L Rev Henderson, Revisited, Design Litigation Defect L Cornell Rev 541 (1976), Henderson, Expanding Negligence Concept: Retreat from Law, the Rule of 51 Ind L J 467 Opinion Court only designs,
feasibility to name of alternative coordinate branch that another few.2To the extent degree government not determined has govern design public policy choices, shall which judiciary. upon the the task devolves design process, Considering we the nature *6 necessarily play adjudication must find that setting design Without standards. role in limited guidelines, extrajudicially some standard-setting process adjudicatory would resort testimony conflicting expert by to an assessment expertise requisite possessed to of the not those adequately and interde the interrelated evaluate Additionally, design pendent this criteria. choice atmosphere an be made within would evaluation by sympathy susceptible for an in to influence jured plaintiff, concern for an abstract instead of play policy public that should effect the desirable in design governing choices. In manufacturer’s varying evitably, to standards from this lead would jury jury court to trial court.3 to or trial foregoing recognizing merely from
areWe formula- of fact are not triers considerations public policy courts and that trial are tors of inappropriate in the area
for the task plaintiffs design say is to This not choices.4 affecting process, pertains adjudication it to as The role of manufacturers, explicated perceptively in Hender choices of Design son, The Choices: Review of Manufacturers’ Conscious Judicial Adjudication, 73 L Rev 1531 Limits of Colum Henderson, supra thesis Henderson’s n at 1558. While Professor perceptively, problem analyzed opponents, as its none have has and Professor response provide persuasive quick Henderson has been to position. Compare cogent of his to the criticisms more Piehler, Twerski, Weinstein, of of Use and Abuse & The Donaher Litigation Liability-Design Warnings Comes in Defect Products Henderson, Design Defect Age, L Rev 495 61 Cornell .with Revisited, Litigation 61 Cornell L Rev 541 extrajudicial problem where The in defect cases ascertaining analogized may what Justice be are absent standards Levin Moning "general v of care”. to as the standard has referred Owens v Allis-Chalmers they have no recovery means which can seek injuries resulting from the conscious extrajudicial choices of manufacturers where de- sign guidelines are absent. duty pro-
There remains a of manufacturers adequate warnings vide products users of their
of the latent
risks of
product design.
their selection of
See Comstock v
Corp,
General
(1959).
Motors
Consequently, plaintiff we conclude that for a establish a of fact as to a manufacturer’s duty breach
litigation,
following
pre
evidence of the
must be
:5
sented
particular
That the
design was
in conformity
with industry design standards, design guidelines estab-
lished
design
voluntary association,
authoritative
*7
by legislative
criteria set
governmental
or other
regulation; or
That the
choice of the manufacturer carries
with it a latent risk of injury and the manufacturer has
adequately
not
communicated the nature of that risk to
product.
users of the
Alfono,
(1977).
divergence
In case, must review the evidence in this verdict we plaintiff. presented light to in favorable most 401, 407; 231 Fox, 394 Mich v Caldwell 49 dence, plaintiffs of the evi From our review that no was raised as we conclude upon impose liability any de would fact that raised neither fendant. The evidence design conformity standards nor a with established readily perceived not risk that would be proofs plaintiffs by decedent, showed was an who operator, experienced familiar with the forklift intrinsic characteristics.6 machine’s longer no frontier We are litigation. approached when The time has begin judiciary of the in to refine the role we must deference to its limitations such controversies with participation importance cognizance governmental branches. This our coordinate opportunity. such an Because case has reached, we need consider of the result by plaintiff. other issues raised Affirmed. Costs defendant. Gillis, J.,
J.
concurred.
H.
(concurring). I
J.
N.
sepa-
concur
operating
had
Decedent’s foreman testified
decedent
been
every
years.
for at
three
He also testified that
forklifts
operator,
least
decedent,
pass
qualifications
including
examination
had to
only
being permitted
operate
before
a forklift. This was
position requiring
an examination.
such
safety
employer
that a similar
director for decedent’s
testified
happened
year
aAs
conse-
about a
before this occurrence.
accident
quence, pertinent
operators
safety
job
all
manuals were reviewed with
operating
emphasize the
for
the forklifts.
need
caution
operating
had
forklifts
Plaintiff
testified that decedent
been
approximately
years.
four to five
*8
7
aspect
develop
62
Significant steps
of our law
taken to
this
were
382;
Co,
years ago
Motor
217 NY
of MacPherson v Buick
(1916).
In this a careful testimony reveals there was no whatsoever prod- any was caused defective uct.