Viscogliosi v. Montgomery Elevator Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1994
• Docket Number: Docket No. 164344
• Citation: 526 N.W.2d 599,208 Mich.App. 188
• Parties: Anna Teresa VISCOGLIOSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR COMPANY, Northwest Airlines, Inc., and Wayne County Department of Public Services, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 599

526 N.W.2d 599

208 Mich.App. 188

Anna Teresa VISCOGLIOSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR COMPANY, Northwest Airlines, Inc., and Wayne County Department of Public Services Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 164344.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Sept. 15, 1994, at Detroit.

Decided Sept. 30, 1994.

Approved for Publication

Dec. 27, 1994, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication Feb. 21, 1995.

Dib & Fagan, P.C. by Michael J. Littleworth, Detroit, for Anna T. Viscogliosi.

James R. Fletcher, Lathrup Village, for Montgomery Elevator Co.

Paskin, Nagi & Baxter, P.C. by Mona-Lisa T. Cichosz, Detroit, for Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Before SAWYER, P.J., and FITZGERALD and EVELAND, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court order that granted summary disposition to defendants and dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injury. We affirm.

The condition that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury was the fact that the moving walkway at Detroit Metropolitan Airport eventually came to an end. That one had to step off at the end of the moving walkway should have been obvious to a reasonable person and was, in fact, known to plaintiff. Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Industries (On Rehearing), 441 Mich. 379, 396, 491 N.W.2d 208 (1992); Novotney v. Burger King Corp. (On Remand), 198 Mich.App. 470, 499 N.W.2d 379 (1993). We agree with the trial court that reasonable minds could not disagree that the walkway, if used as intended, did not place users in obvious danger. Consequently, the walkway was a simple tool, and so there was no duty to warn. See Raines v. Colt Industries, Inc., 757 F.Supp. 819, 825 (E.D.Mich.1991).

Plaintiff's claim that the walkway was a mechanically complicated machine is unpersuasive because only one of the two Raines tests needs to be met in order to qualify the product as a simple tool. Here, the record indicates that the walkway did not place users in obviously dangerous positions. Furthermore, case law involving complicated machinery focuses on the way the product is used rather than on its underlying mechanical parts. See Adams v. Perry Furniture Co. (On Remand), 198 Mich.App. 1, 12, 497 N.W.2d 514 (1993); Coger v. Mackinaw Products Co., 48 Mich.App. 113, 121-122, 210 N.W.2d 124 (1973); Byrnes v. Economic Machinery Co., 41 Mich.App. 192, 198, 200 N.W.2d 104 (1972). Because reasonable minds could not differ that a walkway is very easy to use, there was no duty to warn....