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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (2026)

Product liability action; liability of manufacturer or seller.

✓ 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


600.2947 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.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · 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 14× “Consequently, defendant argues that, under MCL 600.2947(4), it had no duty to warn Bonawitt of the need for shear walls.”
Curry v. Meijer, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 34× “In light of this order, Meijer stipulated to dismissal of its cross-claims, and on September 17, 2008, the trial court entered the final order from which plaintiffs now appeal.”
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc, 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 11× “This products-liability action presents a question of first impression in regard to the proper interpretation of MCL 600.2947(2). 1 That provision provides that a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by the misuse of a product unless that misuse was reasonably foreseeable.”
Coleman v. Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Mich. 2007). · cites it 24× “In 2005, however, a different panel of the Court of Appeals held that: The plain language MCL 600.2947 states that, in cases where a plaintiff brings a product liability action based on harm allegedly caused by a product, the only claims that may lie against a non-manufacturing…”
Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 29× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (6). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT PPR’s motion for summary judgment, GRANT in part and DENY in part DLHC’s motion for summary judgment, and DENY Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 3× “2912(4)(1)(d), MCL 600.2947(3); MSA 27A.2947(3), MCL 600.”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “2912(4)(l)(d), MCL 600.2947(3); MSA 27A.2947(3), MCL 600.”
Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (4) provides, “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…”
Konstantinov v. Findlay Ford Lincoln Mercury, 619 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 13× “The court reasoned as follows: The plain language MCL 600.2947 states that, in cases where a plaintiff brings a product liability action based on harm allegedly caused by product, the only claims that may lie against a non-manufacturing seller are those based on a failure to…”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “MISUSE AND MCL 600.2947 Plaintiff argues that ingestion of the Wonder 8 Oil by a toddler was a reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006). “The plaintiff also pleaded breach of implied warranty under MCL 600.2947(6)(a) and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under MCL 440.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 6× “§ 600.2947(2) and M.C.L. § 600.2945(e). JLG asserts Wendorf also voluntarily assumed an “unreasonable risk of personal injury,” admitting that he knew there was a risk of being run-over *542 if he operated the unit from the ground, and having been warned that personnel were to…”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(1) — 2 cases
Est. of Harishkumar Patel v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Klein, by her Pers. Rep., Brent Klein v. Caterpillar Inc (E.D. Mich. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(2) — 17 cases
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc, 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018). “This products-liability action presents a question of first impression in regard to the proper interpretation of MCL 600.2947(2). 1 That provision provides that a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by the misuse of a product unless that misuse was reasonably foreseeable.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MISUSE AND MCL 600.2947 Plaintiff argues that ingestion of the Wonder 8 Oil by a toddler was a reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “§ 600.2947(2) and M.C.L. § 600.2945(e). JLG asserts Wendorf also voluntarily assumed an “unreasonable risk of personal injury,” admitting that he knew there was a risk of being run-over *542 if he operated the unit from the ground, and having been warned that personnel were to…”
Belleville v. Rockford Mfg. Grp., Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 913 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc (Mich. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(3) — 5 cases
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “2912(4)(l)(d), MCL 600.2947(3); MSA 27A.2947(3), MCL 600.”
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). “2912(4)(1)(d), MCL 600.2947(3); MSA 27A.2947(3), MCL 600.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “§ 600.2947(2) and M.C.L. § 600.2945(e). JLG asserts Wendorf also voluntarily assumed an “unreasonable risk of personal injury,” admitting that he knew there was a risk of being run-over *542 if he operated the unit from the ground, and having been warned that personnel were to…”
White v. Fca Us, LLC, 350 F. Supp. 3d 640 (E.D. Mich. 2018).
Thompson v. Ryobi Ltd. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(4) — 6 cases
Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 780 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Consequently, defendant argues that, under MCL 600.2947(4), it had no duty to warn Bonawitt of the need for shear walls.”
Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “§ 600.2947(2) and M.C.L. § 600.2945(e). JLG asserts Wendorf also voluntarily assumed an “unreasonable risk of personal injury,” admitting that he knew there was a risk of being run-over *542 if he operated the unit from the ground, and having been warned that personnel were to…”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MISUSE AND MCL 600.2947 Plaintiff argues that ingestion of the Wonder 8 Oil by a toddler was a reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product.”
Walker v. Eagle Press & Equip. Co., 408 F. Supp. 2d 402 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(6) — 14 cases
Curry v. Meijer, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In light of this order, Meijer stipulated to dismissal of its cross-claims, and on September 17, 2008, the trial court entered the final order from which plaintiffs now appeal.”
Coleman v. Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “In 2005, however, a different panel of the Court of Appeals held that: The plain language MCL 600.2947 states that, in cases where a plaintiff brings a product liability action based on harm allegedly caused by a product, the only claims that may lie against a non-manufacturing…”
Konstantinov v. Findlay Ford Lincoln Mercury, 619 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “The court reasoned as follows: The plain language MCL 600.2947 states that, in cases where a plaintiff brings a product liability action based on harm allegedly caused by product, the only claims that may lie against a non-manufacturing seller are those based on a failure to…”
Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (6). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT PPR’s motion for summary judgment, GRANT in part and DENY in part DLHC’s motion for summary judgment, and DENY Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MISUSE AND MCL 600.2947 Plaintiff argues that ingestion of the Wonder 8 Oil by a toddler was a reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(6)(a) — 12 cases
Curry v. Meijer, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In light of this order, Meijer stipulated to dismissal of its cross-claims, and on September 17, 2008, the trial court entered the final order from which plaintiffs now appeal.”
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). “2912(4)(1)(d), MCL 600.2947(3); MSA 27A.2947(3), MCL 600.”
Coleman v. Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “In 2005, however, a different panel of the Court of Appeals held that: The plain language MCL 600.2947 states that, in cases where a plaintiff brings a product liability action based on harm allegedly caused by a product, the only claims that may lie against a non-manufacturing…”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “2912(4)(l)(d), MCL 600.2947(3); MSA 27A.2947(3), MCL 600.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006). “The plaintiff also pleaded breach of implied warranty under MCL 600.2947(6)(a) and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under MCL 440.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(6)(b) — 4 cases
Coleman v. Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “In 2005, however, a different panel of the Court of Appeals held that: The plain language MCL 600.2947 states that, in cases where a plaintiff brings a product liability action based on harm allegedly caused by a product, the only claims that may lie against a non-manufacturing…”
Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (6). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT PPR’s motion for summary judgment, GRANT in part and DENY in part DLHC’s motion for summary judgment, and DENY Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
Est. of Trask Simpson v. Gen. Motors LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Kirk Scott Pedersen v. Meijer Stores Inc, 911 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(a) — 1 case
Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (6). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT PPR’s motion for summary judgment, GRANT in part and DENY in part DLHC’s motion for summary judgment, and DENY Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(b) — 1 case
Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947 (6). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT PPR’s motion for summary judgment, GRANT in part and DENY in part DLHC’s motion for summary judgment, and DENY Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
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.