Court Opinion

ID: 9730851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:26:24.080644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.106350
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, P.J.
(dissenting). I must respect*723fully dissent from that portion of the well-written majority opinion reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the theory of breach of implied warranty.
Initially, I note that Nash v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 383 Mich 136; 174 NW2d 818 (1970), cited by the majority, is not a case involving product liability. What Tepco is really claiming is that plaintiffs employer was negligent in failing to provide a safe place to work and that he, the employer, was therefore more negligent, or equally as negligent, as was Tepco. In actuality, this amounts to a reiteration of Tepco’s first claim against D.M.P. Manufacturing Corp., and against which I believe summary judgment was properly granted. Minster Machine Co v Diamond Stamping Co, 72 Mich App 58; 248 NW2d 676 (1976).
I would affirm the trial court’s granting of summary judgments.