GARY LONSBY V POWERSCREEN USA INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GARY LONSBY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 10, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
POWERSCREEN, USA, INC., d/b/a
SIMPLICITY ENGINEERING, INC.,
POWERSCREEN INTERNATIONAL
DISTRIBUTION LTD., POWERSCREEN
INTERNATIONAL, PLC, LUKENS, INC. d/b/a
SIMPLICITY ENGINEERING, INC.,
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION and S A
TORELLO, INC.,
No. 230292
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 98-001809-NO
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Cavanagh and Bandstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this products liability and intentional tort case, plaintiff appeals as of right an order
granting summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff claims that defendants Powerscreen
USA, Powerscreen International, Powerscreen International Distribution, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation and Lukens were liable for injuries he sustained when his arm was severed by the
conveyor belt of a crushing and sorting machine (“machine”). Plaintiff also claimed in the lower
court that because defendant Torello specifically intended his injury, his tort claim fell outside
the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq.1 We affirm.
This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on summary disposition de novo. Maiden v
Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Where, as here, the motion was granted
under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and
other documentary evidence submitted to the trial court in a light most favorable to the
nonmoving party and determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Michigan Educational Employees Mutual Ins Co v Turow, 242 Mich App 112, 114; 617
1
After oral argument, the parties stipulated to an order dismissing plaintiff’s intentional tort
claim, leaving only the products liability issues for our determination on appeal.
-1-
NW2d 725 (2000); Unisys Corp v Comm’r of Ins, 236 Mich App 686, 689; 601 NW2d 155
(1999). If the substantively admissible evidence does not create a genuine issue on any material
fact, judgment must be entered for the moving party. Maiden, supra.
I. Defendants Lukens, Bethlehem, Powerscreen International and
Powerscreen International Distribution
We initially note that plaintiff has abandoned his claim against defendant Lukens and its
successor, Bethlehem, by not addressing why the trial court erred in dismissing those defendants.
This Court will not search for legal authority to support a party’s position, and where a party fails
to cite any supporting legal authority for its position, the issue is effectively abandoned.
Schellenberg v Rochester Elks, 228 Mich App 20, 49; 577 NW2d 163 (1998).
Additionally, plaintiff did not present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact
that Powerscreen International or Powerscreen International Distribution were involved in the
production of the crushing and sorting machine. Plaintiff brought forward no evidence showing
a relationship between these two Powerscreen companies and Powerscreen USA, which made a
component part to the machine. Because plaintiff merely rested on the allegations contained in
his pleadings, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of these two
defendants. See MCR 2.116(G)(4); Karbel v Comerica Bank, 247 Mich App 90, 97; 635 NW2d
69 (2001).
II. Defendant Powerscreen USA
Plaintiff also claims that Powerscreen USA2 was involved in the “production” of the
machine and is thus liable for his injuries. A products liability action is “an action based on a
legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or
damage to property caused by or resulting from the production of a product.” MCL 600.2945(h).
A “product” is defined as “any and all component parts to a product.” MCL 600.2945(g). Key
to resolution of this case is the statutory term “production,” which is defined as “manufacture,
construction, design, formulation, development of standards, preparation, processing, assembly,
inspection, testing, listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising,
packaging, or labeling.” MCL 600.2945(i).
We initially recognize that plaintiff cannot prevail on the basis of Powerscreen USA’s
production of the powerscreen, because it is uncontested that plaintiff was injured on a conveyor
belt that was part of the larger crushing and sorting machine, not on the component triple deck
screen made by Powerscreen USA. Thus, there was no causal connection between the triple
deck screen and plaintiff’s injury, and Powerscreen USA cannot be held liable for plaintiff’s
injuries. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 160; 516 NW2d 475, reh den 445 Mich 1233
(1994).
Nevertheless, in the less than two pages of his brief attributable to this argument, plaintiff
asserts that even if Powerscreen USA did not produce the conveyor belt, it should still be liable
2
For purposes of this opinion “Powerscreen USA” refers also to Simplicity Engineering, which
was purchased by Powerscreen USA.
-2-
because it “left the crucial phase of manufacturing the chassis and conveyor to the haphazard
conduct of the ultimate user.” However, “under Michigan law, a component part manufacturer
has no duty, independent of the completed product manufacturer, to analyze the design of the
completed product which incorporates its non-defective component part.” Childress v Gresen
Mfg Co, 888 F2d 45, 49 (CA 6, 1989). Or, as stated in Citizens Insurance Co v Sears Roebuck
and Co, 203 F Supp 2d 837, 847 (WD Mich 2002), quoting Jordan v Whiting Corp, 49 Mich
App 481; 212 NW2d 324 (1973), rev’d in part on other grounds, 396 Mich 145; 240 NW2d 468
(1976):
The obligation that generates the duty to avoid injury to another which is
reasonably foreseeable does not-at least not yet-extend to the anticipation of how
manufactured components not in and of themselves dangerous or defective can
become potentially dangerous dependent upon the nature of their integration into
a unit designed, assembled, installed, and sold by another.
Hence, there was no duty placed upon Powerscreen USA to analyze the overall machine after it
sold the component powerscreen to Torello.
We also agree with the trial court that plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Powerscreen USA was otherwise involved in the “production” of the machine
under MCL 600.2945(i). Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence at most
showed that a Powerscreen USA representative showed Torello pictures and a slideshow of
plants using Powerscreen screens, and that a Powerscreen USA representative visited Torello
several times during construction of the machine to ensure that the triple deck screen was
properly leveled to within 1/8 inch of the target. However, there were no discussions between
the Powerscreen USA representative and the Torellos regarding the construction or guarding of
conveyors.3 Indeed, plaintiff’s brief on appeal points to no evidence in the record which would
reveal that Powerscreen USA had any involvement in the “production” of the machine except to
provide the component powerscreen which, as noted, did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. As such,
summary disposition was correct as to defendant Powerscreen USA.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
3
The only exhibit attached to plaintiff’s brief on appeal which addresses the product liability
issue is a fax cover sheet from a Powerscreen USA representative which had a postscript
containing a reference to conveyor manufacturers for the Torello’s potential use. That
document, however, does not create a genuine issue of material fact because (1) the testimony
shows that the Torellos never utilized this information and (2) a casual reference such as that on
the cover sheet is insufficient evidence to establish that a party was involved in the “production”
of a product so as to be subject to a product liability claim.
-3-
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.