Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945 (2026)

Definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.2945 Definitions.

Sec. 2945.

    As used in this section and sections 1629, 2945 to 2949a, and 5805:

    (a) "Alteration" means a material change in a product after the product leaves the control of the manufacturer or seller. Alteration includes a change in the product's design, packaging, or labeling; a change to or removal of a safety feature, warning, or instruction; deterioration or damage caused by failure to observe routine care and maintenance or failure to observe an installation, preparation, or storage procedure; or a change resulting from repair, renovation, reconditioning, recycling, or reclamation of the product.

    (b) "Drug" means that term as defined in section 201 of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act, chapter 675, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. 321. However, drug does not include a medical appliance or device.

    (c) "Economic loss" means objectively verifiable pecuniary damages arising from medical expenses or medical care, rehabilitation services, custodial care, loss of wages, loss of future earnings, burial costs, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement of property, costs of obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment, or other objectively verifiable monetary losses.

    (d) "Gross negligence" means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether injury results.

    (e) "Misuse" means use of a product in a materially different manner than the product's intended use. Misuse includes uses inconsistent with the specifications and standards applicable to the product, uses contrary to a warning or instruction provided by the manufacturer, seller, or another person possessing knowledge or training regarding the use or maintenance of the product, and uses other than those for which the product would be considered suitable by a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances.

    (f) "Noneconomic loss" means any type of pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation, humiliation, or other nonpecuniary damages.

    (g) "Product" includes any and all component parts to a product.

    (h) "Product liability action" means an action based on a legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or damage to property caused by or resulting from the production of a product.

    (i) "Production" means manufacture, construction, design, formulation, development of standards, preparation, processing, assembly, inspection, testing, listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or labeling.

    (j) "Sophisticated user" means a person or entity that, by virtue of training, experience, a profession, or legal obligations, is or is generally expected to be knowledgeable about a product's properties, including a potential hazard or adverse effect. An employee who does not have actual knowledge of the product's potential hazard or adverse effect that caused the injury is not a sophisticated user.

History: Add. 1978, Act 495, Eff. Dec. 13, 1978 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 135 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 17× “" Here, the undisputed facts established defendant's "product" was neither defective nor the cause of the foundation movement at issue. Rather, the foundation shifted because Bonawitt failed to initially install shear walls, and then subsequently installed shear walls that were…”
Attorney Gen. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 807 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 19× “MCL 600.2945 defines “product liability action” and “production” as follows: (h) “Product liability action” means an action based on a legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or damage to property caused by or resulting…”
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc, 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 8× “Although the Legislature defined "misuse" in MCL 600.2945(e), it did not provide a definition for "reasonably foreseeable.”
In Re Certified Questions, 331 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 8× “Whether the Michigan products liability statute, MCL 600.2945 et seq.; MSA 27A.2945 et seq.”
Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co., 365 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 4× “[4] However, in the period between the Court of Appeals reversal and the second trial, Michigan had enacted the "products liability statute," MCL 600.2945 et seq.; MSA 27A.2945 et seq.”
Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 6× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945 (h) (West Supp.”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 4× “In the cases before us, plaintiffs argue that their claims fall within the class of products liability actions defined in MCL 600.2945; MSA 27A.2945, [25] and that the proper statutes of limitation and accrual are those provided by the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.”
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “2946a(1) and MCL 600.2945(f), the cap applies to the combined noneconomic damages awarded to both plaintiffs.”
Cahoo v. Sas Inst. Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 772 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 4× “These claims, particularly the claim for negligent "production," incorporate the separate theories under Michigan law based on manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn.”
Jenkins v. Patel, 662 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “[7] MCL 600.2945, which provides definitions related to products-liability actions, defines noneconomic loss as "any type of pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of…”
Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “1403(1) ("the seller had no actual knowledge of the actual age"); MCL 600.2945(j) ("does not have actual knowledge"); MCL 600.”
Karl v. Bryant Air Conditioning Co., 416 Mich. 558 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 8× “Whether the Michigan products liability statute, MCL 600.2945 et seq.; MSA 27A.2945 et seq.”
Show all 135 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(5) — 1 case
Attorney Gen. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Mich. 2011).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(c) — 8 cases
Taylor v. Kent Radiology, PC, 780 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Thorn v. Mercy Mem'l Hosp., 767 N.W.2d 431 (Mich. 2009).
Est. of Rowyn Vasquez v. Clark Edward Nugent Md (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Est. of Jawad Jumaa v. Prime Healthcare Servs.-Garden City LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Est. of Garylyn S Langell v. McLaren Port Huron (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(d) — 6 cases
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Sa v. Red Frog Events, LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
Khatri v. Dearborn Pub. Sch. Dist. (E.D. Mich. 2025).
Khatri v. Dearborn Pub. Sch. Dist. (E.D. Mich. 2025).
Genaw v. Garage Equip. Supply, INC (E.D. Mich. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(e) — 15 cases
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc, 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018). “Although the Legislature defined "misuse" in MCL 600.2945(e), it did not provide a definition for "reasonably foreseeable.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Attorney Gen. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 807 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 600.2945 defines “product liability action” and “production” as follows: (h) “Product liability action” means an action based on a legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or damage to property caused by or resulting…”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Belleville v. Rockford Mfg. Grp., Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 913 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(f) — 3 cases
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “2946a(1) and MCL 600.2945(f), the cap applies to the combined noneconomic damages awarded to both plaintiffs.”
Jenkins v. Patel, 662 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “[7] MCL 600.2945, which provides definitions related to products-liability actions, defines noneconomic loss as "any type of pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of…”
Thorn v. Mercy Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 761 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(g) — 1 case
Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “" Here, the undisputed facts established defendant's "product" was neither defective nor the cause of the foundation movement at issue. Rather, the foundation shifted because Bonawitt failed to initially install shear walls, and then subsequently installed shear walls that were…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(h) — 20 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 807 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 600.2945 defines “product liability action” and “production” as follows: (h) “Product liability action” means an action based on a legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or damage to property caused by or resulting…”
Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “" Here, the undisputed facts established defendant's "product" was neither defective nor the cause of the foundation movement at issue. Rather, the foundation shifted because Bonawitt failed to initially install shear walls, and then subsequently installed shear walls that were…”
Meemic Ins. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 717 F. Supp. 2d 752 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Klinke v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 581 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1998).
Repub. Ins. v. Broan Mfg. Co., 960 F. Supp. 1247 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(i) — 10 cases
Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “" Here, the undisputed facts established defendant's "product" was neither defective nor the cause of the foundation movement at issue. Rather, the foundation shifted because Bonawitt failed to initially install shear walls, and then subsequently installed shear walls that were…”
Allstate Ins. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 673 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
Pamela L Trees v. Pfizer Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Charles Lavin v. Eduardo Conte (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Charles Lavin v. Eduardo Conte (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945(j) — 7 cases
Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “" Here, the undisputed facts established defendant's "product" was neither defective nor the cause of the foundation movement at issue. Rather, the foundation shifted because Bonawitt failed to initially install shear walls, and then subsequently installed shear walls that were…”
Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005). “1403(1) ("the seller had no actual knowledge of the actual age"); MCL 600.2945(j) ("does not have actual knowledge"); MCL 600.”
Walker v. Eagle Press & Equip. Co., 408 F. Supp. 2d 402 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
Greene v. Ap Prods., Ltd., 704 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2005).
Greene v. Ap Prods., Ltd., 704 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.