Heckel v. American Coupling Corp., 28
| Decision Date | 22 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 28,28 |
| Citation | 384 Mich. 19,179 N.W.2d 381 |
| Parties | , 8 UCC Rep.Serv. 188 Milton E. HECKEL and Susie Heckel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Insurance Company of North America, a foreign corporation, Intervening Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN COUPLING CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Dann, Rosenbaum, Bloom & Kaufman, Detroit, by John Safran, Detroit, of counsel, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Robert R. Fox, Detroit, for defendant and appellee, American Coupling Corp.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is a products liability case.
Defendant manufactured and sold a hose and coupling to plaintiff's employer for use in the transmission of gaseous oxygen. While plaintiff was delivering a truck-load of gaseous oxygen to one of his employer's customers, the hose and coupling, through which the gas was being transmitted from the truck into the customer's receiving tank, exploded, causing plaintiff great physical injury.
In this action, brought to recover his resultant damages, plaintiff alleged in Count 1 of his complaint filed herein that defendant was liable on the ground of breach of an implied warranty in that the hose and coupling had been defective and not suitable for what defendant knew was the intended use, and, as alleged in Count 2, that defendant had been guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the explosion and injuries to plaintiff.
On trial a jury returned a verdict of no cause for action. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. The case is now here on leave to appeal granted.
Plaintiff's brief states the question involved here to be, 'Did the lower court err in failing to charge on the theory of implied warranty?'
Plaintiff concedes that at the conclusion of the proofs and trial he had failed to prove or make out a case of defendant's negligence. He wishes to have his case rest entirely on the theory of breach of an implied warranty.
In plaintiff's first count, relying on breach of implied warranty, he alleged 'that the hose and coupling were not proper or suitable for the use intended nor reasonably safe for such purpose and were not constructed in proper design, of proper material or of proper workmanship but were on the contrary of improper design, improper material and of improper workmanship, were not suitable for the transmission of gaseous oxygen under circumstances to be expected or foreseen and were in fact dangerous and unsafe for such use and were subject to explosion, the igniting of the contents of said hose and coupling;'. This amounts to an allegation of defect in the product as it left defendant's place of manufacture. To this plaintiff has continued to adhere. If proved, it would establish a case of breach of implied warranty.
The court instructed the jury as follows:
'And he must also show that that defect was a proximate cause of the injury in this case. * * *'
The substance of that charge was repeated a number of times in the judge's instructions. It constitutes a correct and proper statement of the law with respect to liability for breach of implied warranty and what plaintiff must prove to be entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
...in contact with it while playing in its vicinity. The most succinct statement of Michigan's products liability law is contained in the American Coupling The court instructed the jury as follows: "To recover, the plaintiff, Mr. Heckel, must show * * * the following things. Number one, * * * ......
-
Smith v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
...that a product defect attributable to the manufacturer has a causal relationship to plaintiff's injuries. Heckel v. American Coupling Corp., 384 Mich. 19, 22, 179 N.W.2d 381 (1970); Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 375 Mich. 85, 96-99, 133 N.W.2d 129 (1965). It is commonly accepted that i......
-
Crews v. General Motors Corp.
...and causal connection between that defect and the injury or damage of which he complains". Also see, Heckel v. American Coupling Corp., 384 Mich. 19, 179 N.W.2d 381 (1970). In Caldwell v. Fox, 394 Mich. 401, 231 N.W.2d 46 (1975), the original defendants filed "a common 'garden variety' prod......
-
Jordan v. Whiting Corp.
...109 N.W.2d 879 (1961).3 See generally Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 375 Mich. 85, 133 N.W.2d 129 (1965); Heckel v. American Coupling Corp., 384 Mich. 19, 179 N.W.2d 381 (1970); Parsonson v. Construction Equipment Co., 386 Mich. 61, 191 N.W.2d 465 (1971).4 We note with interest but with......