Ross v. Jaybird Automation, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1988
• Docket Number: Docket No. 95712
• Citation: 432 N.W.2d 374,172 Mich.App. 603
• Parties: Ronnie Lee ROSS and Pamela Ross, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAYBIRD AUTOMATION, INC., a Michigan corporation, and Handling Systems Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendants-Appellees. 172 Mich.App. 603, 432 N.W.2d 374
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 374

432 N.W.2d 374

Ronnie Lee ROSS and Pamela Ross, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAYBIRD AUTOMATION, INC., a Michigan corporation, and Handling Systems Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 95712.

172 Mich.App. 603, 432 N.W.2d 374

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 7, 1988.

Decided Nov. 7, 1988.

Released for Publication Dec. 16, 1988.

[172 MICHAPP 604] Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin, O'Hare, Helveston & Waldman, P.C. by George T. Fishback, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Sullivan, Ward, Bone, Tyler, Fiott & Asher by Michael J. Walter and A. Stuart Tompkins, Detroit, for Jaybird Automation, Inc.

Puleo, Noeske & Tarnavsky by Paul Abbo, Troy, for Handling Systems Corp.

Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and GRIBBS and SIMON, ^* JJ.

MICHAEL J. KELLY, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a circuit court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs originally brought a product liability action against defendants for their failure to warn or instruct plaintiff Ronnie Lee Ross's employer regarding the installation of a coil cradle machine. The trial court found that defendants owed no duty to warn or instruct, and granted summary disposition for defendants. We affirm.

On September 27, 1983, plaintiff Ronnie Lee Ross was working at Prestige Stamping, Inc. Ross was injured while operating a production system consisting of a stamping press and a coil cradle machine. A coil cradle is an automated industrial machine which feeds metal from a coil into a [172 MICHAPP 605] stamping press. This particular coil cradle had been used at Prestige Stamping since 1972. Defendant Jaybird Automation, Inc., manufactured this coil cradle. Defendant Handling Systems Corporation sold the coil cradle to Prestige. Defendants sell coil cradles only to the metal stamping industry, and do not sell them to the general public. Handling Systems had sold a total of fourteen coil cradles to Prestige Stamping.

The coil cradle was not equipped with an electrical cord, nor did defendants sell a cord with it. Instead, the coil cradle was equipped with an electrical junction box to which the user would supply electricity in the manner best suited to the particular plant layout. Defendants did not include any instructions or warnings for wiring the coil cradles to an electrical source. The common practice in the industry for wiring these machines was to attach them to an overhead encased conductor which dropped the cord directly onto the machine.

Instead of wiring their coil cradle machine from above, Prestige's coil cradle was wired to a 220-volt outlet on the wall, with the wire running along the floor next to the coil cradle. There was no protective conduit around this cord. The electrical cord which connected the coil cradle with the 220-volt outlet had a cut in it, which apparently came in contact with a piece of scrap steel in Ross' work area. Ross attempted to pick up the scrap, and received a severe electrical shock which caused a loss of vision in his left eye.

Plaintiffs filed this product liability suit against defendants, alleging negligence and breach of warranty in their manufacture and sale of the coil cradle machine. The basis for plaintiffs' allegations was defendant's failure to instruct or warn Prestige Stamping regarding the proper installation and wiring of a coil cradle.

[172 MICHAPP 606] Defendants jointly moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) on the basis that they owed no duty to warn or instruct Prestige Stamping regarding the installation of the coil cradle. The trial court found that defendant had no duty to warn or instruct an experienced user of such mechanical equipment, and granted summary disposition for both defendants. Plaintiffs appeal as of right.

First, we note that defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) for failure to state a claim. However, the parties actually argued this motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendants owed Prestige no duty to warn or instruct. A review of the record indicates that the trial court went outside the pleadings to determine this issue. Therefore, we review this order of summary disposition as one entered pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Huff v. Ford Motor Co., 127 Mich.App. 287, 293, 338 N.W.2d 387 (1983).

A seller or manufacturer is generally liable in negligence for failure to warn purchasers or users of its product about dangers associated with intended uses and foreseeable misuses. Antcliff v. State Employees Credit Union, 414 Mich. 624, 637, 327 N.W.2d 814 (1982), reh. den. 417 Mich. 1103 (1983); Pettis v. Nalco Chemical Co., 150 Mich.App. 294, 301, 388 N.W.2d 343 (1986), lv. den. 426 Mich. 881 (1986). This standard of care includes dissemination of information, either warnings or instructions, as is appropriate for the safe use of the product; such information must...