Opinion ID: 364791
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Opportunity to Change Design

Text: 25 The District Court's instruction on the defendant's opportunity to change the design of the 7-Up carton also raises problems. The Court told the jury that plaintiff could recover if Seven-Up had an opportunity to avoid causing injuries by changing the design and failed to use this opportunity. We agree that the opportunity to eliminate the harm is a proper consideration for the jury in considering the negligence and implied warranty theories. But this paragraph was submitted by the plaintiff as a separate instruction and was given by the Court, for some reason, after its summary of plaintiff's third-party beneficiary theory of liability. 26 The difficulty with the opportunity to change the design instruction is that it is not stated as a factor to be considered in connection with the negligence and implied warranty theories to which it logically relates. Read as a separate charge, it could be understood as directing a verdict for the plaintiff if the jury found that the defendant had the opportunity to change the design and eliminate the risk of injury. In this portion of the court's charge, the jury was not told that to impose liability it must also find the crucial element that the product was defective or not reasonably safe. 27 It may be that the District Court, and the jury, understood that this element of defectiveness was implicit in the words opportunity to avoid causing injuries. But it is equally likely that the jury understood the instruction to permit a finding of liability simply because Seven-Up failed to make the carton accident-proof even though the carton was not defective. As we have already said, we do not believe Michigan law goes this far. It does not establish a standard of absolute liability or make the supplier an insurer against accidents caused by ordinary products.