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

Heading: Liability Based on Inherently Dangerous Product

Text: 22 The District Court instructed the jury that it could also find that carbonated beverages . . . bottles are inherently dangerous and, if so, that a franchisor in the position of a supplier has a duty to warn of a known inherent danger in its product . . . not readily apparent to the user. 23 We can find no basis for suggesting that Michigan courts will extend the standard of absolute liability for inherently dangerous activity to the distribution of bottles containing carbonated beverages. The Michigan cases imposing absolute liability for extra-hazardous or inherently dangerous activity have, in the main, involved blasting, the collection of a quantity of water in a dangerous location, storage of inflammable liquids, and like activities. 23 Michigan courts and federal courts applying Michigan law have apparently declined to extend this standard to flooding due to a dam in the natural bed of a stream, 24 or to the production and sale of electricity, 25 and have always based liability in exploding bottle cases on negligence or implied warranty. 26 We therefore think it was error for the court to instruct the jury that it could hold Seven-Up liable on a theory of absolute liability for engaging in inherently dangerous activity. 24