Court Opinion

ID: 9674752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:34:48.32721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.564309
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
I am convinced that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant’s *511tests on "similar” winch-heads. I cannot agree with the majority that the circumstances under which defendant’s experiments were conducted were substantially or sufficiently similar to those of the actual occurrence. I find particularly significant (1) the wide discrepancy in age between the actual winch-head and the experimental models, and (2) the conditions to which the winch-heads were subjected, i.e., approximately 22 years in the outdoors versus 3 to 12 years in a storeroom. Since weathering and rusting could well have weakened the metal, these differences cannot be fairly characterized as minor variations going merely to the weight of the evidence. Consequently, it is clear that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of defendant’s tests.
I also believe that the trial court’s negligent design instruction was erroneous. Silisky v Midland-Ross Corp, 97 Mich App 470, 478; 296 NW2d 576 (1980), lv held in abeyance 410 Mich 866 (1980), and Owens v Allis-Chalmers Corp, 83 Mich App 74, 81; 268 NW2d 291 (1978), lv gtd 405 Mich 827 (1979), relied upon by the majority, misstate the law. See, e.g., Durkee v Cooper of Canada, Ltd, 99 Mich App 693, 699; 298 NW2d 620 (1980). I expect that eventually both Owens and Silisky (not to mention this case) will be reversed.
I also believe that defense counsel’s conduct exceeded the bounds of fair advocacy and denied plaintiff a fair trial.
I would reverse and remand for a new, and fair, trial.