Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2949a (2026)

Knowledge of defective product.

✓ 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

600.2949a Knowledge of defective product.

Sec. 2949a.

In a product liability action, if the court determines that at the time of manufacture or distribution the defendant had actual knowledge that the product was defective and that there was a substantial likelihood that the defect would cause the injury that is the basis of the action, and the defendant willfully disregarded that knowledge in the manufacture or distribution of the product, then sections 2946(4), 2946a, 2947(1) to (4), and 2948(2) do not apply.

History: Add. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “2945(j) ("does not have actual knowledge"); MCL 600.2949a ("the defendant had actual knowledge that the product was defective"); MCL 600.”

Bondie v. Bic Corp., 739 F. Supp. 346 (E.D. Mich. 1990). “§ 600.2949a). 1 The eases that Bic cites and that involve lighters do not bind this court.”

Rodriguez v. Ase Indus., Inc, 738 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The primary issue presented for our consideration is whether a trial court is free to conclude that a defendant in a products-liability action had actual knowledge that the product was defective under MCL 600.2949a even if the jury has determined under MCL 600.”

Belleville v. Rockford Mfg. Grp., Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 913 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “This statute provides that: In a product liability action, if the court determines that at the time of manufacture or distribution the defendant had actual knowledge that the product was defective and that there was a substantial likelihood that the defect would cause the injury…”

Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 81 F. Supp. 3d 582 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “Law § 600.2949a; and (5) Gross Negligence. Plaintiff Sarazin contends that Defendant CDS’s product, the SFK Cutter, was defectively designed.”

Paul v. Henri-Liné Mach. Tools, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “As summary judgment was granted in favor of Henri-Liné Tools with respect to the claims of negligence and breach of warranty, Paul’s claim of gross negligence is dismissed and the issue of the application of statutory damage cap pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2949a need not be…”

Est. of Harishkumar Patel v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “On cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by not setting aside the damages cap imposed under MCL 600.”

Kaiser v. Jayco, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 600.2949a (footnote omitted). In summary, a plaintiff may not recover more than $280,000 in noneconomic damages in a products-liability action unless (1) the jury finds that “the defect caused either the [plaintiff’s] death or permanent loss of a vital bodily function”—in…”

Irrer v. Milacron, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d 677 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “The same is true for Plaintiffs’ experts who broadly opine as to what Milacron should have known and what information Milacron should have placed in its warnings but do not opine as to Milacron’s actual knowledge as required under § 600.2949a. Plaintiffs’ evidence as to…”

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.