Court Opinion

ID: 9520437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:39:47.80272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:15.063208
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring in affirmance). We are concerned in these cases with a product manufactured and sold for human consumption. The principles applicable to the disposition thereof were considered and declared at some length in Hertzler v. Manshum, 228 Mich 416, the scope of the opinion being expressly limited to facts of the character there involved. In accordance with the decision, which has been recognized as declaring the law of this State, the manufacturer of a product intended for human consumption owes a duty to the ultimate consumer and impliedly warrants that the article as manufactured is free from any content inimical to human life or health.
In the instant cases it is apparent from the record before us that the plaintiffs relied on the case cited. The pretrial statement so indicates. The cases were tried on the theory of the implied warranty recognized in Hertzler v. Manshum, and the trial judge submitted the cases to the jury accordingly. It is apparent that the jury determined from the proofs that plaintiffs had established prima facie cases and that defendant had failed to meet the burden resting *244on it. It may not be said that such conclusions were not supported by the record. We are not concerned liere with the existence or nonexistence of implied warranties in cases involving the manufacture and sale of products not intended for human consumption.
We find no reversible error and the judgments entered on the verdicts of the jury are affirmed.
Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Carr, J.