PRENTIS V. YALE MFG. CO.
Mich. Sup. Ct, 421 Mich. 670, 365 N.W.2d 176 (1984)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Yale (D), manufacturer, sought review of an order of the Court of
Appeals, which reversed the judgment in its favor and remanded for a new trial, in an action
by Prentis (P), injured party and his wife, alleging negligence and breach of implied
warranty as a result of the defective design of a forklift.
FACTS: P who was employed as foreman of the parts department at an automobile dealership,
sustained a hip injury in an accident involving the use of a forklift manufactured by P and
sold to P's employer in 1952. The forklift was a stand-up or walking type rather than a
riding or sit down variety. It was operated by lifting its handle up, much like the handle
of a wagon. It weighed about two thousand pounds and was powered by a large battery, which
had to be recharged every night. The machine was equipped with a hand controlled 'dead-man'
switch which normally prevented it from moving if the operator let go of the handle or
controls. P was sixty-three years old at the time of the accident, occasionally operated the
forklift and had never been formally instructed as to its operation by his employer. P was
aware of and had previously experienced problems with the machine. After use for five or six
hours, the battery charge would run down and the machine would operate erratically. When the
battery was low, the machine was subject to power surges which he said could throw a person
off balance if care was not taken. Prior to his accident, the machine had broken through the
garage door of the dealership five or six times due to such power surges. P testified that
he was aware at the time that the battery charge on the forklift was running low. When the
machine experienced a power surge, he lost his footing and fell to the ground. P received
extensive treatment for multiple fractures of his left hip. P sued alleging negligence,
failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty. A jury verdict in favor of D was entered
and was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The reversal was based upon a finding that the
trial court abused its discretion when it prevented P's expert on human factors from
expressing his opinion on the design of the machine in question, because he had no
experience with that type of machine. The court based its reversal upon a finding that the
excluded testimony was integrally related to P's theory of the case which was a design
defect. P's contention was that the design of the forklift failed to properly incorporate
the operator as a 'human factor' into the machine's function, specifically because it did
not provide a seat or platform for the operator. P requested separate jury instructions on
implied warranty and negligence theories. The court instructed the jury on a unified
standard of liability by using an amalgam of the common elements of proof under the implied
warranty and negligence theories. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment