MCL § 600.2947 – Product liability defenses (misuse, alteration, comparative fault)
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 600
Act 236 of 1961
236-1961-29
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
600.2947 Product liability action; liability of manufacturer or seller.
Sec. 2947.
(1) A manufacturer or seller is not liable in a product liability action for harm caused by an alteration of the product unless the alteration was reasonably foreseeable. Whether there was an alteration of a product and whether an alteration was reasonably foreseeable are legal issues to be resolved by the court.
(2) A manufacturer or seller is not liable in a product liability action for harm caused by misuse of a product unless the misuse was reasonably foreseeable. Whether there was misuse of a product and whether misuse was reasonably foreseeable are legal issues to be resolved by the court.
(3) A manufacturer or seller is not liable in a product liability action if the purchaser or user of the product was aware that use of the product created an unreasonable risk of personal injury and voluntarily exposed himself or herself to that risk and the risk that he or she exposed himself or herself to was the proximate cause of the injury. This subsection does not relieve a manufacturer or seller from a duty to use reasonable care in a product’s production.
(4) Except to the extent a state or federal statute or regulation requires a manufacturer to warn, a manufacturer or seller is not liable in a product liability action for failure to provide an adequate warning if the product is provided for use by a sophisticated user.
(5) A manufacturer or seller is not liable in a product liability action if the alleged harm was caused by an inherent characteristic of the product that cannot be eliminated without substantially compromising the product’s usefulness or desirability, and that is recognized by a person with the ordinary knowledge common to the community.
(6) In a product liability action, a seller other than a manufacturer is not liable for harm allegedly caused by the product unless either of the following is true:
(a) The seller failed to exercise reasonable care, including breach of any implied warranty, with respect to the product and that failure was a proximate cause of the person’s injuries.
(b) The seller made an express warranty as to the product, the product failed to conform to the warranty, and the failure to conform to the warranty was a proximate cause of the person’s harm.
MCL § 600.2947 Summary
This Michigan statute outlines several key defenses that a manufacturer or seller can raise in a product liability lawsuit. Essentially, it specifies situations where a company might not be held responsible for injuries caused by their product. These defenses include instances where the product was altered or misused in an unforeseeable way, where the user knowingly took on a risk, where a “sophisticated user” should have known about a danger, or where the harm came from an inherent and obvious characteristic of the product. Additionally, it limits the liability of sellers (who aren’t the original manufacturers) unless they failed to exercise reasonable care or breached an express warranty. The statute clarifies that issues of foreseeability concerning alteration or misuse are to be decided by the court.
Purpose of MCL § 600.2947
The legislative intent behind this statute is to strike a balance between holding manufacturers and sellers accountable for defective products and protecting them from liability for harm they could not reasonably prevent or anticipate. It aims to prevent unreasonable claims where a product’s injury stems from user behavior outside its intended scope, an inherent and unavoidable characteristic, or a sophisticated user’s failure to heed known risks. By defining these specific product liability defenses, the law promotes fairness in litigation, encourages responsible product use, and provides clear guidelines for both consumers and businesses regarding their respective duties and liabilities in Michigan. It seeks to limit liability to situations where the manufacturer or seller genuinely had control over the risk or failed in their duty of care.
Real-World Example of MCL § 600.2947
Imagine a construction worker, Mark, purchases a power saw for a home renovation project. The saw comes with clear instructions to always use the blade guard. Mark, wanting to make a quick cut on an unusually thick piece of wood, removes the blade guard because it’s impeding his work. In the process, he accidentally cuts his hand severely.
Under MCL § 600.2947(2), the saw manufacturer could argue that Mark’s injury was caused by a “misuse of a product” because he removed a critical safety feature. The key question for the court would be whether this misuse (removing the blade guard for easier cutting) was “reasonably foreseeable” by the manufacturer. If the court determines that removing the guard was not a reasonably foreseeable misuse, or that the warning was adequate and Mark knowingly exposed himself to the risk per subsection (3), the manufacturer might not be held liable for Mark’s injuries, even though the saw itself was the instrument of harm. Conversely, if evidence showed that manufacturers in the industry commonly knew users removed guards for certain tasks, the misuse might be deemed foreseeable.
Related Statutes
- MCL § 600.2945 – Definitions; product liability action: This statute defines what constitutes a “product liability action” in Michigan, laying the groundwork for when MCL § 600.2947 would apply.
- MCL § 600.2946 – Standard of care; breach of implied warranty: This section outlines the general standards of care for manufacturers and sellers regarding the design, manufacture, and warnings for products, and how a breach of these standards or implied warranties can lead to liability. It often works in conjunction with MCL § 600.2947, as defenses under 2947 might counter claims made under 2946.
- MCL § 600.2948 – Contributory negligence; reduction of damages: While MCL § 600.2947 addresses specific defenses that can bar liability entirely, MCL § 600.2948 addresses how a plaintiff’s own comparative fault (contributory negligence) can reduce the amount of damages they can recover in a product liability action, rather than completely preventing recovery.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.2947
Several Michigan appellate court cases have cited and applied the principles found in MCL § 600.2947. While direct, detailed interpretative opinions on every subsection are not always published as standalone landmark cases, the statute’s provisions are regularly applied in product liability litigation.
- Regarding the “sophisticated user” defense under subsection (4), the Michigan Court of Appeals discussed its application in cases like Reeves v. KitchenAid Div., Whirlpool Corp., 288 Mich. App. 752 (2009). This case, among others, delves into what constitutes a sophisticated user and the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn such users.
- The principles of “misuse” and “alteration” and their foreseeability (subsections 1 and 2) are frequently applied in trial courts, with appellate courts often reviewing the trial court’s determination of foreseeability as a matter of law. While specific cases often turn on their unique facts, the framework established by MCL § 600.2947 guides these analyses. For instance, discussions in cases pertaining to product defect claims often touch upon whether an injury was caused by a product defect or by an unforeseeable user action. The Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have consistently emphasized that foreseeability remains a critical factor in product liability cases, impacting both duty and proximate causation.
Why MCL § 600.2947 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
MCL § 600.2947 is a foundational piece of legislation in Michigan product liability law, critically impacting personal injury lawsuits involving defective products. For plaintiffs, understanding this statute is essential because it outlines the potential hurdles they may face when seeking compensation for injuries. A plaintiff’s attorney must anticipate and be prepared to counter these defenses, demonstrating that the product’s alteration or misuse was foreseeable, or that the user was not fully aware of and voluntarily exposed themselves to an unreasonable risk.
For defense attorneys representing manufacturers and sellers, MCL § 600.2947 provides powerful tools to mitigate or avoid liability. These defenses allow them to argue that their client should not be held responsible when a product is used improperly, fundamentally changed by the user, or when the harm stems from an obvious characteristic. The “sophisticated user” defense, in particular, can be vital for manufacturers supplying components or products to industrial settings where users are presumed to have specialized knowledge. Both sides must be adept at arguing the “foreseeability” aspects, as the court’s determination on this legal issue can be a case-maker or breaker. Ultimately, this statute shapes strategy, evidence presentation, and settlement negotiations in virtually every product liability case in Michigan, influencing outcomes for both injured individuals and product companies.