*1 SQUARE D SKINNER v COMPANY 21, 1992, April Decided at Detroit. Docket No. 127703. Submitted 8, 1992, sought. appeal September at 9:10 a.m. Leave to Skinner, representative personal L. for herself and as Doris Skinner, deceased, Jeffrey W. Skinner estate of Chester W. brought liability products Circuit Court action in the Oakland against Square Company D after Mr. Skinner was electrocuted a switch manufacturеd a machine on which he had installed Mester, J., court, granted Fred M. the defendant. The defendant, finding plain- summary disposition that the for the allegedly switch was a tiffs had not shown that the defective plaintiffs appealed. proximate cause of the accident. The Appeals The Court of held: concerning whether No issue of material fact еxists alleged proximately death. caused Mr. Skinner’s defect theory regarding plausible how Plaintiffs failed to advance a allegedly the accident. The court defective switch caused disposition. granting summary did not err in Affirmed. J., dissenting, plaintiffs stated that Michael exhibits, theory supported by testimony,
presented plausible presented jury and inferences рroximate The court erred to the cause of the accident. granting summary disposition. Liability — — 1. Products Prima Facie Case Causation. products liability requires proof prima A facie of a causal case damage relationship the defect and the of which between prima require plaintiff complains; a facie case does not that the positively every plaintiff excludes other offer evidence cause; enough plaintiff possible it is if the can establish a effect, notwithstanding logical sequence of cause and the exis- may evidentiary tence of other theories that have support. References 2d, Liability seq.. Am Jur Products 224 et §§ Liability. Index under Products See the to Annotations Square Opinion op the Court Liability — — 2. Products Causation Burden of Proof. products liability The element of causation in a action cannot be solely conjecture; or established on the basis of causation, and, plaintiff proving bears the burden of where the pure conjecture, speculation matter of causation is one of duty is the trial court’s to direct a verdict for the defendant. Liability Summary Disposition. — — 3. Products Causation *2 conjecture regarding products liability Mere causation action proof imposed party opposing does not meet the burden of on a summary disposition a motion for to come forward with docu- indicating mentary evidence that a issue of material (MCR 2.U6[G][4]). fact exists (by Associates, Lawrence P. Nolan & P.C. Law- Nolan), plaintiffs. rence P. Wright,
Dickinson, Moon, Van Dusen & Free- Hughes man Barbara Erard and Bieke Susan (by Neilson), for the defendant. Kelly Before: P.J., Jansen, and Michael and Griffin, JJ. brought products J. Plaintiffs this lia-
Griffin, against bility defendant, action D Com- pany, following plaintiffs’ decedent, the death of Chester W. Skinner. Mr. Skinner was electrocuted by tumbling his own homemade machine on which he had installed a switch manufactured defen- appeal right dant. Plaintiffs as of circuit entering summary disposition order in favor of 2.116(0(10). pursuant defendant affirm. to MCR We i tragic This is a case. Plaintiffs’ decedent was in cleaning finishing parts. the business of metal routinely end, To this made Mr. Skinner used a home- designed machine that he had Opinion of the Court Essentially, the machinе consisted built himself. Rough large a frame. drum mounted on metal along placed parts the drum inside metal were detergent. quantity An electric of abrasive with a in one direction to then the drum motor rotated allowing parts. rotate After the drum to wash the for a the would be period operator time, reverse would parts of the tumbler and finished direction ejected from the drum. designed Mr. Skinner had
Because reversing machine, of the drum’s the direction dangerous task. The motor that rotation was a turned the drum was controlled
by a switch manu- Mr. Skinner had connected factured the defendant. using to the motor three "alligator clips” on the ends. wires with insulated In machine, to reverse the direction of the order operator required to disconnect two of the the alligator clips by hand and reverse
from the motor important reasons, them. For it was obvious operator Square D to make sure that position disconnecting switch was in the off before *3 the wires from the motor. February 21, 1986, Mr. Skinner was in his
On shop, working in the room with the women, machines. Beulah Skinner and two othеr Mrs. Whiting, in an- McBride Violet were parts. racking Suddenly, room, other the women cry They heard Mr. where with his hands above his Skinner out. ran into room standing was, Mr. Skinner and found him grasping head, each hand alligator clip. passing an Electric current was through body. Mr. Skinner’s Aware of what was happening, women,' Mr. Skinner cried out to the "don’t touch me”! He then freed his left hand from alligator clip Square D and reached for the switch. Mr. Skinner threw the switch into the off position, twisted, and fell over dead. D op Opinion the Court
II plaintiffs’ theory that a defect in this case It is proximately design in the al- Plaintiffs Mr. Skinner’s electrocution. caused lege it had a because that the switch was defective large the switch to be zone” that allowed "dead appear positioned it would in such a actually operator it was on. to be off when agreed, argues, and the trial Defendant assuming defective, there that even the switch was actually that Mr. Skinner was is no evidence position at of the switch or misled confused Thus, defendant he was electrocuted. the time submits, concerning fact exists nо issue of material alleged proximately defect whether thorough re- death. After a caused Mr. Skinner’s agree view, defendant’s we are constrained to argument. Michigan law that a
It is well established
requires
products liability
prima
case for
facie
relationship
proof
between the defect
plaintiffs
of a causal
complain.
damage
of which the
and the
Corp,
395, 415;
432 Mich
v DEC Int'l
Mulholland
(1989).
prima
It
true that a
tiffs have failed to not their burden is
simply produce evidence that the switch possibly, confusing theoretically could one at some time. be to some- evidence
They produce must jury reasonably from whiсh a could conclude that Mr. Skinner was in fact confused operating just switch on the machine he was be- fore he was electrocuted and that this confusion Ward, Derbeck led to his death. . . . See 38, App (1989); NW2d [443 812] Inc, Cartage, Jubenville v West End (1987). NW2d [413 absurdity confusion exposed operator as soon as one realizes that machine did depend upon appeared the switch handle to determine whether the machine was "on” or "off.” Even if pushed Mr. Skinner the handle of the switch *5 D Co v Opinion op the Court incompletely into an have if it somehowteased its or even ambiguous position, Mr. not Skinner could thought off if in fact it was the machine was The noise running! of the tumbler barrel still deafening is and the motion the motor barrel is were before Thus, if Mr. Skinner continuous. even machine, turn the off careful and tried to alligator refastening unfastening and clips, switch had the the to have known that he would have had power not turned the off because running. He could machine would still have been not have looked the tumbler as ignored and over- the roar of the motor continuously it turnеd di- original.] [Emphasis rectly in in front of him! by plaintiffs in an at- The scenarios advanced tempt are characterized to establish causation well "Agatha Christie theories.” We defendant as acknowledge proximate usually is that cause summary disposition of fact and that exceptional appropriate only Derbeck in cases. See carefully supra. case, Ward, In this we have plaintiffs’ find none to scenarios and reviewed all plausi- supported by fact reason. Without plaintiffs’ be ble causation, fail claim must summary disposition is warranted. For this and reason, court did not err
we conclude that the trial summary dispo- granting defendant’s motion sition.
m remaining arguments plaintiffs’ turn now to We appeal. next contend that the trial on Plaintiffs dispo- granting erred defendant sepa- ruling plaintiffs’ specifically on sition without to of failure to insulate and failure rate claims disagree. warn. We argue D switch was that
Plaintiffs it was not made insulated because defective op Opinion the Court material and that there is evidence that this defect contributеd
to Mr. Skinner’s electrocution. find We argument disingenuous accordingly reject this it. It Mr. Skinner experts agree appear that when
does grabbed provided switch, he secondary ground for the current increased magnitude the mony of the shock he received. The testi- by plaintiffs, however,
relied on does only indicate that it was at that instant Contrary shock fatal. became asser- Klingler, plaintiffs, tion, Dr. a witness for the did shutting *6 not conclude that it was the act of power off that caused Mr. Skinner’s death: Q. [attorney your opin- for the it Is defendant]: operating
ion that if the had been mechanism on this switch insulated, that Mr. Skinner would not have been electrocuted? Klingler]: just A. I may don’t know. He [Dr. may
have received an extremе shock. He still have electrocuted. been
I don’t I say know. can’t about that. Klingler testimony Dr. also admitted that his speculative. if Mr. When asked Skinner could have been electrocuted he had a before chance to Klingler replied, switch, "Oh, reach for the sure.” pathologist Similarly, an who conducted au- topsy, Kallet, Dr. testified that Mr. Skinner had alrеady completed by the circuit the time he grabbed entering switch, with the current right exiting through his hand and the balls of his feet. We find no for on basis relief this issue. plaintiffs
Finally, question contend that a of fact regarding negligent exists in whether defendant was failing place warning to label on the defective finding plaintiffs switch box. Our have not proximate shown that the defect was a cause of the accident renders this issue moot. Square Kelly, J. Michael J. Dissent
Affirmed.
Jansen, P.J., concurred. (dissenting). I respectfully J.
Michael dissent. posit require to
It citation of authorities does Michigan red-, black-, law bold-letter proximate is that is a cause jury. question Doubts of fact to be decided intervening supersed- remoteness, acts, and about present questions ing invariably for almost сauses jury. exceptions: reason- There are two when differ, relation minds cannot and when the able injury mere defect and the involves between the Only conjecture, inference. such not reasonable proximate cause become a cases does the court. adopts majority case, defendant’s
In this arguments that Mr. Skin- in its brief to the еffect ambiguity ner could not have been misled switch, on and because the machine was rotating, motor was so loud was therefore and the thought decedent could not have fact-depen- claims are the machine was off. Such reviewing fact-disputed. are not dent and We disposition. If the trial This was a trial. *7 light in had viewed the evidence most plaintiffs, majority would not favorable to have been misled then the into assum- defendant’s brief Goldberg ing cumbersome, machine that this Rube roaring rotating, tumbling, at thé critical was engaged plaintiffs’ in his time when decedent was procedures customary, usual, and normal for re- of the drum rotation. Reversal of rotation versal three-step process. First, the elec- the drum was a tric using power motor had to be cut off to the Next, two of switch manufactured defendant. 195 Michael J. Dissent the three wires that ran to the motor had to be three-phase power reversed. A source was used and three wires ran from the switch. At the end of each "alligator clip.” an.
wire was insulated Each clip would be attached to one of three leads motor, from the In motor. order to reverse the two clips of the three would be reversed on the leads step, from the motor. As the third and final switch would be thrown back to the on position current to flow to. the turn motor and the drum. only testimony regard Mr. Skinner’s activity employ- in that was from his own reputa- ees who Mr. testified that Skinner had the being shop, tion careful around the and that he always shut off the switch before he reversed the alligator clips. Corp,
In
395,
Mulholland v DEC Int’l
(1989),
Supreme
415;
notwithstanding
plausible
the existence of other
theories, although
other
theories may
evidentiary support.
also have
majority
Neither defendants nor the
have obviated
plaintiffs’ theory and the inferences to be drawn
testimony
from the
It
witnesses.
Skinner,
plaintiffs’ was
that Mr.
looked at
ambiguous position,
and,
the switch
because of its
grasped
clips
bеlieved it to be off. He then
was,
fact,
electrocuted because the
sure,
on. To be
there are
inconsistencies
testimony of the witnesses. The witnesses did not
operating
make clear whether
the machine was
dinner,
after the Skinners returned from
but
*8
D Square
J.
J.
by
Kelly,
Michael
Dissent
experts
parties
by
clearly
both
for
established
was
power
switch in аn
on with the
the
could be
that
turning,
ambiguous position,
the tumbler not
running,
the
because
reversible
the motor
the
that
Those are
wires
were disconnected.
wires
holding
the
onto when
witnesses
was
decedent
responded
jour-
take
It does not
a
to his screams.
distinguished pro-
neyman electrician,
a
let alone
possible
fessor,
occurrence.
оf that
to make sense
hearing
for
the motion
At
to
the
attorney
disposition,
defendant’s
admit-
hearing,
purposes
the
ted,
of
that
for
the
heavy
time,
Until
that
was defective.
guns
trial
to
a defect. The
court
loaded
show
were
deciding
question
fact
a
of
into
was misdirected
comparative negligence
contributory
concerning
might
very apt
althоugh
at
that,
the court
be
question,
regarding
anticipating
jury
the
decision
inappropriately
motion
de-
decided. The
was
was
telephone,
the trial court over the
cided
ruled:
produced no
to show a
Plaintiff has.
evidence
support
specific
switch somehow caused
death.
that the
fact issue to
his
plaintiff’s
decedent’s
Although pictures
of
tum-
of the switch and
bling
part
exhibits,
of the
it is
machine were
trial
court
not have
obvious that
trial
did
ambiguity
of the
the demonstration
benefit of
pre-
D on-off switch handle
argument. Ambiguous
this Court at oral
sented to
is a
description
bull’s-eye
switch handle.
theory supported
presented
Plaintiffs
testimony,
exhibits,
and inferences
jury.
presented
It was not for
responsibility
"the
trial
dеcide
195 Michael J.
Dissent
regards
Company
to this.” Proximate
*9
jury.
cause is a
(On
Recently,
Hickey
in
v Zezulka
Resubmis-
sion),
(1992),
408;
intentional Hickey’s acts in violation of civil rights Hickey, supra, under 42 USC 1983.” 417.