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UNPUBLISHED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.
CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent with regard to the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant
Powerscreen USA. The product at issue, i.e., the “component triple deck screen,” is, as
described in defendant’s advertisement, a “6’ x 20’ portable three-deck inclined screening plant,”
that weighs approximately 17,900 pounds, requires a 30 HP, 1800 RPM motor, and costs
approximately $30,000. Defendant designed and manufactured this piece of machinery which
was not functional without the use of conveyors to move the crushed and sorted materials
through the three-deck screening plant. Plaintiff’s arm was amputated by one of the associated
underscreen conveyors.
First, I disagree with the majority’s characterization of defendant’s product as a
“component part.” See, e.g., Davis v Link, Inc, 195 Mich App 70, 71; 489 NW2d 103 (1992);
Jordan v Whiting Corp (On Rehearing), 49 Mich App 481, 484; 212 NW2d 324 (1973), rev’d in
part on other grounds 396 Mich 145 (1976). Second, I would hold that, considering the evidence
in a light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact that
defendant was actively involved in the “production” of the entire screening operation, which
-1-
necessarily included the conveyor system, as well as the triple-deck screening plant. See MCL
600.2945(i). Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor
of this defendant and remand for continuation of proceedings.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
