Court Opinion

ID: 9541962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:30:10.182335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:29.643784
License: Public Domain

Lesinski, C. J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I agree with the opinion of the majority except as to the result and that part of section V of the majority’s opinion that holds the trial court was required to instruct on the issue of reliance. I would affirm the judgment with costs to plaintiff.
On the issue of reliance, I find the position of the majority to be inconsistent. If the rule in Michigan is as we agree and state it to be, then clearly reliance by either the plaintiff or his employer is not a factor as to the theory of recovery under subparagraph (b) of the Restatement. 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 324A, p 142.
The majority on this issue would unduly in*660crease the burden of the plaintiff’s proofs because the inspections were performed for the employer of the plaintiff. The majority must of necessity invoke some of the principles involved in the master-servant doctrine to arrive at this position. This writer does not find them applicable because the Workmen’s Compensation Act has abrogated the relationship in cases such as plaintiff’s, who is in covered employment. Further, the majority is in error in sub silentio subrogating the defendant to the defenses of the employer if, arguendo, the defense was available to the employer under the master-servant doctrine.
The doctrine of reliance in this case is misapplied. In an action against the defendant by the employees, more appropriately the question is one of negligence on the part of the defendant and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The fact that plaintiff may have known that the guard that brought about his injury was missing goes to the question of contributory negligence. The jury decided this issue against the defendant.
The record in this case shows the defendant discussed with plaintiff the safe operation of the machine that caused his injury just days before the accident; the fact that defendant did not alert plaintiff to the danger of the unguarded gears is evidence of an improper inspection and safety instruction.
While it is true the employer had no master safety program and the defendant was without authority to shut down a machine, the defendant was not without recourse. With proper notice the defendant could have withdrawn from the risk. If the employer refused to follow safety suggestions made by defendant, it should have sought to withdraw from the risk. No matter what suggestions *661defendant may have made in the interests of safety, the fact remains that on the occasion in question it undertook a safety inspection and did not discover or ask that an obvious dangerous condition be corrected.
I vote to affirm.