Holbrook v. Koehring Co., Docket No. 26062
| Decision Date | 16 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 26062 |
| Parties | Clifford HOLBROOK and Virginia Holbrook, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KOEHRING COMPANY, a Wisconsin Corp., and Vos Equipment Co., a Michigan Corp., jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees. 75 Mich.App. 592, 255 N.W.2d 698 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[75 MICHAPP 593] Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey by Michael A. Snapper, Henry L. Guikema, Grand Rapids, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Hillman, Baxter & Hammond by William S. Farr, Michael D. Wade, Grand Rapids, for Koehring Co.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan by Edward D. Wells, Grand Rapids, for Vos Equipment Co.
Before D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., P. J., and QUINN and ALLEN, JJ.
The jury trial in this products liability case ended with a jury verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiffs appeal and we affirm.
Plaintiff Clifford Holbrook was operating a crane manufactured by Koehring Company and sold by Vos Equipment Company, the maximum lifting capacity of which was 140,000 lbs. The accident [75 MICHAPP 594] giving rise to this action occurred when plaintiff was lifting an injection molding machine that weighed 159,000 lbs.
Plaintiffs claim error because the trial court excluded some evidence concerning failure of the mechanical locks prior to the accident. This failure occurred during cold weather, a condition not present when the accident giving rise to this action occurred. There was no error, Freed v. Simon, 370 Mich. 473, 122 N.W.2d 813 (1963).
The second error asserted is the exclusion of evidence concerning the failure of the mechanical locks after the accident. This evidence concerned an event which occurred two years after the accident involved in this case. This is too remote to be relevant. We find no error, Freed, supra.
Subsequent to the accident in question, some remedial repairs were taken to correct problems with the mechanical locks. At trial, plaintiffs offered to introduce evidence to establish this fact. The third error claimed on appeal is the exclusion of this evidence. We find no error, Denolf v. Frank L. Jursik Company, 395 Mich. 661, 238 N.W.2d 1 (1976).
With respect to plaintiffs' claim of error on the exclusion of evidence concerning complaints received by the manufacturer involving similar equipment, we find that the exclusion was proper. A proper foundation as to similarity of conditions and proximity of time was not laid, Freed, supra.
Plaintiffs claim reversible error because the trial court refused to give the following requested instruction:
"Even if you find that Mr. Holbrook did misuse the crane, you may nevertheless reach a verdict in favor of plaintiffs if you also find that the misuse was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant."
[75 MICHAPP 595] It would have been error to have given the requested instruction where plaintiff attempted to lift an object 19,000 lbs. heavier than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
...305 (1970); Henkel v. R. and S. Bottling Co., 323 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 1982); Rey v. Cuccia, 298 So.2d 840 (La.1974); Holbrook v. Koehring, 75 Mich.App. 592, 255 N.W.2d 698 (1977); Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, 291 So.2d 169 (Miss.1974); Tucci v. Bossert, 53 A.D.2d 291, 385 N.Y.S.2d 328 (1976); O......
-
Graham v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons
...of the Parsonson Court was adopted in Crews v. General Motors Corp., 400 Mich. 208, 253 N.W.2d 617 (1977), and Holbrook v. Koehring Co., 75 Mich.App. 592, 255 N.W.2d 698 (1977), both of which deal, at least tangentially, with the warning The evenly divided Crews Court upheld this Court's de......
-
Durkee v. Cooper of Canada, Ltd.
...crane operator tried to lift a 159,000-pound machine with a crane designed to hoist only 140,000 pounds. Holbrook v. Koehring Co., 75 Mich.App. 592, 595, 255 N.W.2d 698 (1977). In the case at bar, plaintiff was an adult with 28 years of experience playing hockey. He was aware of the dangers......