JERRY VAN EIZENGA V MICHAEL RAYMOND STRALEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JERRY VAN EIZENGA as Personal Representative
of the ESTATE OF PATRICIA VAN EIZENGA,
Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
MICHAEL STRALEY and KAREN STRALEY,
No. 198819
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 92-078244 NI
Defendants,
and
CHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Griffin and Bandstra, JJ.
SMOLENSKI, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Based on the entire record, particularly the testimony of the expert
witnesses, I conclude that the facts warranted the imposition of a duty to warn and that plaintiff
presented sufficient evidence to support his cause of action based on the negligent design theories of
failure to warn and design defect. I would, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Phinney v Perlmutter, 222 Mich App 513, 524;
564 NW2d 532 (1997).
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
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.
