Court Opinion

ID: 9685151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:24:42.493407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.748965
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, J.
(concurring). I concur sepa*83rately in the well-written opinion by my colleague based on the following language from Elsasser v American Motors Corp, 81 Mich App 379, 384-385; 265 NW2d 339 (1978).
"A product liability suit based on an implied warranty theory requires proof of a defect in manufacturing or design and injury caused by or resulting from the defect. Piercefield v Remington Arms Co, 375 Mich 85, 96; 133 NW2d 129 (1965). Under the implied warranty theory a defect is established by proof that the product is not reasonably fit for its intended, anticipated or reasonably foreseeable use. Dooms v Stewart Bolling & Co, 68 Mich App 5, 14; 241 NW2d 738 (1976), lv den 397 Mich 862 (1976).”
In this case, a careful reading of the transcript reveals that there was no testimony whatsoever that the injury was caused by any defective product.