Fisher v. Johnson Milk Co., Docket No. 3266

Decision Date27 August 1968
Docket NumberNo. 2,Docket No. 3266,2
Citation13 Mich.App. 10,163 N.W.2d 652
PartiesWilliam L. FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON MILK COMPANY, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

William L. Fisher in pro per.

Steve S. Michaels, Michaels, Ferris & Olzark, Mt. Clemens, for defendant-appellee.

Before T. G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and BEER * and LEVIN, JJ.

T. G. KAVANAGH, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from summary judgment granted to defendant, dismissing plaintiff's action for breach of implied warranty and for negligence.

Plaintiff alleged that while carrying 4 half-gallon bottles of milk in a wire carrier (which had been sold to him by defendant at some earlier date) he slipped on ice, dropping the carrier which landed Upright, and fell upon a jagged edge of a broken bottle, thereby cutting his left hand. Plaintiff claimed that defendant, in selling such a carrier without the safeguard of a 'false bottom' to cushion the impact and prevent breakage of bottles if dropped, or in failing to warn of the dangers in carrying the bottles in the carrier on icy days, was guilty of negligence. Such negligence, plaintiff claimed, was the proximate cause of injury to his hand.

Plaintiff also claimed that failure to equip the carrier with safeguards made it unfit for the purposes intended and, consequently, not merchantable. Therefore it is alleged that defendant is guilty of a breach of implied warranty.

The trial court granted summary judgment on defendant's motion that plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted. On plaintiff's motion for rehearing the court said:

'The rather precise question here is whether the facts pleaded, viz: carrying glass bottles in a wire container on a known slippery, icy sidewalk which bottles broke when the plaintiff carrier slipped and fell on the ice, creates a set of facts wherein there is any jury question of improper design which was a proximate cause of the injury. Plaintiff's brief does not touch upon this subject.'

Appellant has, however, in his amended complaint of negligence and breach of implied warranty, raised material questions of defendant's obligation to anticipate and either to warn or to safeguard against mishaps which ensue while using this product.

Where negligence is asserted, in determining when a summary judgment should be granted for the defendant 'the test used is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Brown v. Porter
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 27, 1968
    ... ... PORTER, Defendant-Appellee ... Docket No. 2884--5 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan, ... statute regulated claim for tax refund; Johnson v. Flemming (C.A.10, 1959), 264 F.2d 322; Wirtz ... 269; Rutledge v. Sinclair Refining Co. S.D.N.Y.1953), 13 F.R.D. 477. See also, Boulet ... ...
  • Fisher v. Johnson Milk Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1970
    ...Accordingly, I would affirm the summary judgment for defendant entered in circuit court, reversed by the Court of Appeals. 13 Mich.App. 10, 163 N.W.2d 652. On an unspecified date defendant, operating a milk business, sold to plaintiff, a practicing patent attorney, a wire carrier made to ca......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT