PAULA BUTLER V CUISINARTS CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PAULA BUTLER and BRENDAN RUTHERFORD,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 1998
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 193044
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 94-482570-NO
CUISINART CORPORATION,
Defendant-Cross Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
CARGO EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
KUNIMORI KAGAKU COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellee,
and
SANYEI AMERICAN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals the orders entered by the trial court granting summary disposition in favor of
defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We affirm
-1
While removing the blade of a food processor from its packaging materials, plaintiff suffered an
injury to her left hand. Plaintiff asserts the trial court’s grant of summary disposition was improper
because there was a question of fact whether a warning was included in the packaging materials and
whether the warning was adequate to inform of the possible danger of unpacking. We disagree.
Plaintiff concedes defendants had no duty to warn her of the dangers of unpacking the sharp
blade, but argues they voluntarily assumed a duty because they included unpacking instructions with the
food processing units. We acknowledge that when a person voluntarily assumes the performance of a
duty, they are required to perform it with reasonable care, not omitting to do what an ordinarily prudent
person would do in accomplishing the task. Sponkowski v Ingham Co Road Commission, 152 Mich
App 123, 127; 393 NW2d 579 (1986). However, in this case, plaintiff failed to establish that
defendants voluntarily assumed a duty because she admitted there were no unpacking instructions inside
the box she was unpacking when she was injured. Accordingly, her argument is without merit and the
trial court’s grant of summary disposition was proper.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
