Phillips v. Langston Corp.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. Civ. 98-40381.,Civ. 98-40381.
• Citation: 59 F.Supp.2d 696
• Parties: Sheila PHILLIPS, individually and Sheila Phillips as next friend of William Phillips and Brandon Mohammed, Plaintiffs, v. The LANGSTON CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

59 F.Supp.2d 696

Sheila PHILLIPS, individually and Sheila Phillips as next friend of William Phillips and Brandon Mohammed, Plaintiffs, v. The LANGSTON CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. Civ. 98-40381.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

August 4, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Paul W. Broschay, Zeff & Zeff, Detroit, MI, Sheryl L. Berenbaum, Zeff & Zeff, Detroit, MI, for plaintiffs.

Thomas R. Meagher, Foster, Swift, Lansing, MI, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

GADOLA, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed on May 28, 1999 by defendant The Langston Corporation (hereinafter "Langston"). On November 2, 1998, plaintiff Sheila Phillips initiated the instant products liability action. This Court's jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries sustained while cleaning a Saturn III Flexo Folder Gluer, a machine used to make boxes from cardboard. The machine in question was manufactured, sold and installed by defendant-corporation. Plaintiff also seeks loss of consortium damages on behalf of her children, William Phillips and Brandon Mohammed. On July 23, 1999, plaintiff filed her response to defendant's motion. A reply brief was submitted by defendant on August 2, 1999.¹

For the reasons set forth hereinbelow, the Court will grant defendant's motion for summary judgment.

I. Factual Background

On May 22, 1998, plaintiff Sheila Phillips was injured when her ponytail was caught between the rolls of a Saturn III Flexo Folder Gluer (hereinafter "Saturn III" or "machine"). The incident occurred at the Georgia-Pacific facility located in Milan, Michigan (hereinafter the "facility"). As mentioned above, the machine in question is used to create boxes from cardboard. Specifically, the machine takes a blank sheet of cardboard, cuts it to shape, adds print and glues it to form a box. The Saturn III requires hot and cold water as well as a compressed air line.

For reasons discussed more fully below, plaintiff emphasizes that the machine is not part of any system requiring a conveyor. Plaintiff also points out that no other machines depend upon the Saturn III for their operations. The Saturn III was manufactured, sold, and installed by defendant Langston at the Georgia-Pacific facility in 1989. Installation was completed by early 1990. See Aff. of Walter Avis, attached as Exh. 1 to defendant's brief in support of motion for summary judgment.

In September of 1989, defendant Langston submitted a 19-page proposal to Georgia-Pacific for the sale of the Saturn III at a price of approximately $1.5 million. See Tab A to defendant's brief. Defendant also submitted a separate proposal for installation at an additional cost of $46,000. See Tab B to defendant's brief. Installation of the Saturn III required, inter alia, the digging of pits, trenches, and drains into the existing floor of the facility. See Exh. 1, ¶ 8 to defendant's brief. The installation also required modification of the facility in the form of separate power sources, air lines, hot water lines, and cold water lines. See Exh. 1, ¶ 9 to defendant's brief. Additionally, during installation, defendant performed all necessary grouting, bolting, mechanical, electrical and pipe-fitting connections, as well as other necessary tasks. See Exh. 1, ¶ 9 to defendant's brief.

It is undisputed that the facility accepted defendant's proposals and ordered the Saturn III tailored to Georgia-Pacific's specific needs. See Tabs C, D & E to defendant's brief. By January 12, 1990, the installation of Saturn III was completed except for a die cutter and stripper. These items were delivered in February of 1990. See Exh. 1 & Tab F to defendant's brief.

Defendant has proffered testimony of Georgia-Pacific personnel establishing that the Saturn III was first put to use in early 1990. See Depo. of David F. Adams, Maintenance Manager at Georgia-Pacific facility, attached to defendant's brief, p. 15. The machine in question is and was at all times relevant to this action bolted to the floor of the facility. See Depo. of Thomas Wayne Coble, Production Manager at Georgia-Pacific facility, pp. 20-22; see also Adams Depo., p. 36. The business of the Georgia-Pacific facility is the manufacture of corrugated containers. See Coble Depo. p. 19.

Plaintiff Sheila Phillips initiated the instant action on November 2, 1998 with the filing of her complaint. On November 4, 1998, this Court entered orders appointing plaintiff Phillips as next friend of her children, William Phillips and Brandon Mohammed. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges various design defects, including failure to warn, as well as breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. As mentioned above, plaintiff additionally seeks loss of consortium damages on behalf of her children.

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." "A fact is `material' and precludes grant of summary judgment if proof of that fact would have [the] effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties, and would necessarily affect [the] application of appropriate principle[s] of law to the rights and obligations of the parties." Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, as well as draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor. See U.S. v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Bender v. Southland Corp., 749 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (6th Cir.1984).

The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of all genuine issues of material fact. See Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir.1986). This burden "may be discharged by showing ... that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party discharges that burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a genuine triable issue. Fed. R.Civ.Proc. 56(e); Gregg, 801 F.2d at 861. To create a genuine issue of material fact, however, the nonmovant must do more than present some evidence on a disputed issue. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., "[t]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the [nonmovant's] evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). See Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The evidence itself need not be the sort admissible at trial. Ashbrook v. Block, 917 F.2d 918, 921 (6th Cir.1990). However, the evidence must be more than the nonmovant's own pleadings and affidavits. Id.

III. Analysis

The sole question presently before this Court and raised by defendant in its motion for summary judgment is whether plaintiff's claims are barred by Michigan's statute of repose, M.C.L. § 600.5839. This case being premised on diversity of citizenship, the Court is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Accordingly, Michigan law must be applied to determine the viability of plaintiff's claims. "[T]he question whether [a] claim is statutorily barred is one of law for the Court." Witherspoon v. Guilford, 203 Mich.App. 240, 243, 511 N.W.2d 720 (1994) (citing Smith v. Quality Const. Co., 200 Mich.App. 297, 299, 503 N.W.2d 753 (1993)).

Defendant argues that Michigan's statute of repose applies in the instant case to preclude plaintiff's claims. Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.5839 governs "[a]ctions against architects, professional engineers or contractors arising from improvements to real property, actions against land surveyors; limitation of actions; definitions; application of amendments." Pursuant to that Section,

[n]o person may maintain any action to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, against any state licensed architect or professional engineer performing or furnishing the design or supervision of construction of the improvement, or against any contractor making the improvement, more than 6 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement, or 1 year after the defect is discovered or should have been discovered, provided that the defect constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which the action is brought and is the result of gross negligence on the part of the contractor or licensed architect or professional engineer. However, no such action shall be maintained more than 10 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement.

M.C.L. § 600.5839(1) (emphasis added). Defendant maintains that the evidence establishes that the Saturn III was installed and began operation in 1990. Since plaint...