Court Opinion

ID: 9660470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:14:16.81324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:19.814017
License: Public Domain

Marilyn Kelly, J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion. Plaintiffs asserted that, because the above-ground pool did not have a slippery or padded bottom, the pool was defectively designed. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on Glittenberg v Doughboy Recreational Industries (On Rehearing), 441 Mich 379; 491 NW2d 208 (1992). I *146agree with plaintiffs that the trial court erred in relying on Glittenberg to dismiss the design defect claim.
Glittenberg did not address the issue of whether a manufacturer has a duty to design a safer product where the product is a simple tool. Glittenberg held only that the manufacturer of a simple product has no duty to warn of the dangerous conditions or characteristics that are readily apparent or visible upon casual inspection. Id. at 399. Even though Glittenberg differentiated design defect claims from failure to warn claims, its statements concerning design defect claims were dicta.1 The only issue decided in Glittenberg was whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn of open and obvious dangers in cases of simple tools. Therefore, Glittenberg is inapplicable to plaintiffs design defect claim.
Regardless, the trial court properly granted summary disposition. The Supreme Court has held that, where simple tools are involved, there is no duty to warn or protect against open and obvious dangers. Fisher v Johnson Milk Co, Inc, 383 Mich 158; 174 NW2d 752 (1970). The above-ground pool in this case has been declared a simple tool. Mallard v Hoffinger Industries, Inc, 210 Mich App 282; 533 NW2d 1 (1995). Therefore, there is no duty to warn or protect against the obvious danger. Fisher, supra.
I write separately because I question the analysis in Fisher. Even where the product is a simple one, a manufacturer should be held to a standard of reasonable care. The obviousness of the risk is only one factor that should be considered. I believe that the *147Supreme Court should reexamine Fisher in the context of this case.

 I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Glittenberg Court’s discussion of design defect claims did not apply to simple tools.