REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2948 Death or injury; warnings as evidence.
Sec. 2948.
(1) Evidence is admissible in a product liability action that, before the death of the person or injury to the person or damage to property, pamphlets, booklets, labels, or other written warnings were provided that gave notice to foreseeable users of the material risk of injury, death, or damage connected with the foreseeable use of the product or provided instructions as to the foreseeable uses, applications, or limitations of the product that the defendant knew or should have known.
(2) A defendant is not liable for failure to warn of a material risk that is or should be obvious to a reasonably prudent product user or a material risk that is or should be a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same or similar position as the person upon whose injury or death the claim is based in a product liability action.
(3) In a product liability action brought against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, a manufacturer or seller is not liable unless the plaintiff proves that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk of harm based on the scientific, technical, or medical information reasonably available at the time the specific unit of the product left the control of the manufacturer.
(4) This section does not limit a manufacturer's or seller's duty to use reasonable care in relation to a product after the product has left the manufacturer's or seller's control.
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
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 27× “MCL 600.2948, in chapter 29 of the Revised Judicature Act, now governs a defendant’s duty to warn of an obvious danger in a product-liability action.”
Cora Mitchell v. City of Warren, MI, 803 F.3d 223 (6th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 9× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948 (3). Any liability for failure to warn in this case thus would require a showing that Taser “knew or should have known” about the risk of cardiac arrest from an X26 chest shot based on the information available “at the time” of sale—here August 17,…”
Avendt v. Covidien Inc., 262 F. Supp. 3d 493 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 2× “3d at 226 -27 (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948 (3)). “A company does not have a duty to warn of all theoretically possible dangers.”
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc, 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018).
“2 Steven Iliades's wife, Jane Iliades, is also a party in this action with an independent claim for loss of consortium, which would be derivative of her of husband's legally cognizable bodily injury. In this opinion, use of the singular "Iliades" refers to Steven only.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “OPEN AND OBVIOUS DANGER DOCTRINE, MCL 600.2948, AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE The first issue we address concerns defendants’ argument that the danger arising from ingestion of Wonder 8 Oil was open and obvious.”
Hammons Ex Rel. Hammons v. Icon Health & Fitness, 616 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
· cites it 4× “2d 622 (1985); see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948 (3) (A manufacturer or seller cannot be held liable under a failure-to-warn theory “unless the plaintiff proves that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk of harm based on the scientific, technical, or…”
In Re Certified Questions, 331 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. 1982).
“2947, MCL 600.2948; MSA 27A.2948. Since the issue has not been raised or briefed and its consideration is not necessary in answering the certified questions, the general rule of law is that this Court will not consider such an extraneous issue.”
Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 600.2948. Plaintiff has produced no evidence to establish such knowledge on the part of Defendants General Corrugated or Acme.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 600.2948(2) because Wendorf assumed the risk of operating the machine from the ground, Wendorf stood too close to the machine, Wendorf was warned not to “slam” the toggle switch from left to right, Wendorf cannot show that he would have used the machine differently had he been…”
Karl v. Bryant Air Conditioning Co., 416 Mich. 558 (Mich. 1982).
“2947, MCL 600.2948; MSA 27A.2948. Since the issue has not been raised or briefed and its consideration is not necessary in answering the certified questions, the general rule of law is that this Court will not consider such an extraneous issue.”
Peak v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 924 F. Supp. 2d 822 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Defendants raise three arguments in support of their request for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to warn claims: (a) there is no evidence of a sticking problem being common with the controller model at issue, and/or that Kubota knew of any such alleged…”
Paul v. Henri-Liné Mach. Tools, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948 (2) provides that: A defendant is not liable for failure to warn of a material risk that is or should be obvious to a reasonably prudent product user or a material risk that is or *702 should be a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948(2) — 14 cases
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 475 Mich. 502 (Mich. 2006).
“MCL 600.2948, in chapter 29 of the Revised Judicature Act, now governs a defendant’s duty to warn of an obvious danger in a product-liability action.”
Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc, 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018).
“2 Steven Iliades's wife, Jane Iliades, is also a party in this action with an independent claim for loss of consortium, which would be derivative of her of husband's legally cognizable bodily injury. In this opinion, use of the singular "Iliades" refers to Steven only.”
Greene v. a P Prods., Ltd, 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“OPEN AND OBVIOUS DANGER DOCTRINE, MCL 600.2948, AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE The first issue we address concerns defendants’ argument that the danger arising from ingestion of Wonder 8 Oil was open and obvious.”
Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
“§ 600.2948. Plaintiff has produced no evidence to establish such knowledge on the part of Defendants General Corrugated or Acme.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
“§ 600.2948(2) because Wendorf assumed the risk of operating the machine from the ground, Wendorf stood too close to the machine, Wendorf was warned not to “slam” the toggle switch from left to right, Wendorf cannot show that he would have used the machine differently had he been…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948(3) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948(4) — 2 cases
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.