Court Opinion

ID: 9685392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:35:46.510422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:05.377531
License: Public Domain

Mackenzie, P.J.
(dissenting). In my view, a new trial is required in this case because the jury’s two verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent.
Defendants contend that the verdict was inconsistent because the jury cannot consistently find defendants not negligent yet liable for breach of implied warranty in a design defect products liability case. Negligence and breach of implied warranty are separate and distinct theories of recovery in products liability. Smith v E R Squibb & Sons, Inc, 405 Mich 79, 89; 273 NW2d 476 (1979). As our Supreme Court stated in Prentis v Yale Manufacturing Co, 421 Mich 670, 692; 365 NW2d 176 (1984):
We do not dispute the generally recognized distinction between the elements of negligence and breach of warranty. We recognize that the negligence theory generally focuses on the defendant’s conduct, requiring a showing that it was unreasonable, while warranty generally focuses upon the fitness of the product, irrespective of the defendant’s conduct.
However, in a products liability action based on negligent design, "breach of implied warranty and negligence involve identical evidence and require proof of exactly the same elements.” Prentis, supra, p 692, quoting Squibb, supra, p 88. The Prentis Court explained:
*159A manufacturer has a duty to design its product so as to eliminate any unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury. Owens v Allis-Chalmers Corp, 414 Mich 413, 425; 326 NW2d 372 (1982). For the lack of reasonable care in the face of such duty, the manufacturer may be answerable in a negligence action. Elsasser v American Motors Corp, 81 Mich App 379, 384; 265 NW2d 339 (1978). When proceeding under a theory of implied warranty, a design defect is established by proof that the product is not reasonably safe for the uses intended, anticipated, or reasonably foreseeable. Dooms v Stewart Bolling & Co, 68 Mich App 5, 14; 241 NW2d 738 (1976), lv den 397 Mich 862 (1976). For the sale of a product defective in such respect, the seller may be answerable for breach of an implied warranty. Elsasser, supra. Thus, when the issue is liability of a manu facturer who was also the seller, it is inconceivable that a jury could determine that the manufacturer had not breached its duty of reasonable care and at the same time fínd that the product was not reasonably safe for its reasonably foreseeable uses. The question in either case turns on reasonable care and reasonable safety, and as pointed out by Dean Prosser, the liability of the manufacturer rests "upon a departure from proper standards of care so that the tort is essentially a matter of negligence.” [Quoting Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 96, p 644. Emphasis added. 421 Mich 692-693.]
In Granger v Fruehauf Corp, 429 Mich 1; 412 NW2d 199 (1987), relied on by the majority, the defendant sold to the plaintiff’s employer "as is” a used trailer which it had manufactured. The plaintiff was injured while climbing the trailer, which lacked a ladder, during unloading. He brought suit against the defendant manufacturer/seller alleging negligent design and breach of implied warranty. The jury was instructed on both theories and found that the defendant was liable for negligent design but not for breach of implied war*160ranty. Noting that "[i]f there is an interpretation of the evidence that provides a logical explanation for the findings of the jury, the verdict is not inconsistent,” 429 Mich 7, the Supreme Court in Granger found no reason to set aside the verdict on inconsistency grounds because there was such a logical explanation: "[t]he jury . . . could have found as to the intervening sale that the 'as is’ disclaimer negated any claim for breach of warranty, but that the defendant was negligent in the original design of the trailer.” Id.
In this case, unlike in Granger, the jury found no negligent design, but grounded liability on breach of implied warranty. This distinction has considerable significance. The Granger Court stated:
In Prentis, we noted that because breach of an implied warranty of fitness in a design defect case is essentially a matter of negligence, the focus is on whether the manufacturer exercised reasonable care and reasonable safety. We observed that a trial court instruction on breach of warranty as well as on negligent design "would have been repetitive and unnecessary and could have misled the jury into believing that plaintiff could recover on the warranty count even if it found there was no 'defect’ in the design of the product.” Id., 691-692. In the instant case, however, there is no such concern because the jury found a "defect,” i.e., it found "negligence.” [429 Mich 7.]
In the instant case, the converse is true: the jury found no "negligence,” but reached the "inconceivable” determination, Prentis, supra, p 693, that the trailer was defective. Such divergent findings were, of course, the precise concern of the Prentis Court.
In light of Prentis, and in the absence of any *161particular circumstances analogous to the Granger "as is” clause which would negate plaintiffs negligence claim, I can discern no logical explanation for the jury’s findings. Accordingly, I would vacate the verdict and remand for new trial.