industry standard in Michigan

1974"The danger inherent in allowing an 'industry’ standard to be the sole criteria for determining whether or not the defendant exercised due care was recognized in Witt v Chrysler Corp, 15 Mich App 576, 583 ; 167 NW2d 100 (1969): " 'To adopt this view would permit the industry to set its own standard of care.’ ” Similarly, Judge Learned Hand also enumerated the dangers of allowing an industry standard to be determinative of negligence: " 'Indeed, in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adopt

1974"The danger inherent in allowing an 'industry’ standard to be the sole criteria for determining whether or not the defendant exercised due care was recognized in Witt v Chrysler Corp, 15 Mich App 576, 583 ; 167 NW2d 100 (1969): " 'To adopt this view would permit the industry to set its own standard of care.’ ” Similarly, Judge Learned Hand also enumerated the dangers of allowing an industry standard to be determinative of negligence: " 'Indeed, in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adopt

2026The existence of the ASTM standard is not necessarily proof that defendant breached its duty to plaintiff, but it is evidence of it. “[C]ustom and industry practices are relevant to the issue of due care,” so “[a]n argument on the basis of industry standards . . . goes to the question whether a defendant breached its duty of ordinary care.” Schultz v Consumers Power Co, 443 Mich 445, 456 ; 506 NW2d 175 (1993).

2026The existence of the ASTM standard is not necessarily proof that defendant breached its duty to plaintiff, but it is evidence of it. “[C]ustom and industry practices are relevant to the issue of due care,” so “[a]n argument on the basis of industry standards . . . goes to the question whether a defendant breached its duty of ordinary care.” Schultz v Consumers Power Co, 443 Mich 445, 456 ; 506 NW2d 175 (1993).

2022Particularly relevant to defendant’s argument is that a symptom of a manic or hypomanic episode includes an “[e]xcessive involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (e.g., engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments).” Id.

1980Defendant relies for this argument on this Court’s holding in Owens, supra. Again, if this case were decided in accordance with the majority opinion in Owens, the only standard material to the issues being tried would be the industry standard, which was not the basis for the expert’s opinion in the case at bar.

1980Defendant relies for this argument on this Court’s holding in Owens, supra. Again, if this case were decided in accordance with the majority opinion in Owens, the only standard material to the issues being tried would be the industry standard, which was not the basis for the expert’s opinion in the case at bar.

1980However, if this case is decided consistent with Elsasser, supra, the adequacy of the cupola industry’s safety standards, if any existed, was properly at issue.

1970Judge Quinn, the author of the opinion, said later, in the case of Witt v. Chrysler Corporation (1969), 15 Mich App 576 , 583: “ Barton, supra, involves warning, not testing and inspection, and the warning was given in print of a reasonable size.