BRADLEY LAVIN V CHILD CRAFT INDUSTRIES INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BRADLEY LAVIN, a Minor, by his Next Friend,
WENDY Y. LAVIN, individually,
UNPUBLISHED
April 20, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 245386
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 01-037096-NO
CHILD CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Griffin and Borrello, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Wendy Y. Lavin appeals as of right from the trial court’s order dismissing her
product liability claim against defendant Child Craft Industries, Inc., pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Bradley Lavin, at the age of thirteen months, was placed on the floor next to his crib.
Bradley stood up and fell against a sharp bracket on the exterior of his crib manufactured by
defendant.1 As a result of the fall, Bradley’s nose was cut and required stitches. Plaintiff alleged
that defendant negligently designed and manufactured the crib, breached its duty to warn and
breached the implied warranty. In granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the trial
court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of either defective design or
defective manufacturing and that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Specifically, the trial
court noted plaintiff’s failure to establish that defendant deviated from industry standards; that
defendant’s design carried a latent risk of injury that was inadequately communicated to users;
that there existed a feasible alternative production practice; or that the crib was actually
defective.
Plaintiff contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition, as there existed a genuine issue of material fact. We disagree. We review
a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.2 A motion pursuant to
1
The bracket in question is part of the mechanism that allows the crib’s side rail to be lowered.
2
Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 461; 628 NW2d 515 (2001).
-1-
MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff’s claim.3 “In reviewing a motion for
summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we consider the affidavits, pleadings,
depositions, admissions, or any other documentary evidence submitted in a light most favorable
to the nonmoving party to decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.”4 Summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.5
Manufacturers have a duty to design their products “to eliminate ‘any unreasonable risk
of foreseeable injury.’”6 There are two theories under which a plaintiff may proceed to prove a
design defect in a product liability action. A plaintiff can show that a product was rendered
defective by the manufacturer’s failure to warn potential users of dangers involving the intended
uses, and foreseeable misuses, of the product.7 To establish a prima facie case of failure to warn,
a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached
that duty; (3) the defendant’s breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and (4) the
plaintiff suffered damages.8 A manufacturer has a duty to warn if it has actual or constructive
knowledge of a danger, which is not obvious to users, and the manufacturer failed to use
reasonable care in informing users of the danger or the facts tending to make the condition
dangerous.9
Under the second, more traditional theory, of design defect, a plaintiff must show that the
product was “not reasonably safe for its foreseeable uses”10 and that a risk-utility analysis
favored a safer design.11 Under this approach, a plaintiff must show that (1) the product was not
reasonably safe when it left the control of the manufacturer; and (2) a “feasible alternative
3
Auto-Owners Ins Co v Allied Adjusters & Appraisers, Inc, 238 Mich App 394, 397; 605 NW2d
685 (1999).
4
Singer v American States Ins, 245 Mich App 370, 374; 631 NW2d 34 (2001).
5
Auto-Owners Ins Co, supra at 397.
6
Ghrist v Chrysler Corp, 451 Mich 242, 248; 547 NW2d 272 (1996), quoting Prentis v Yale Mfg
Co, 421 Mich 670, 693; 365 NW2d 176 (1984).
7
Gregory v Cincinnati Inc, 450 Mich 1, 11; 538 NW2d 325 (1995), citing Gerkin v Brown &
Sehler Co, 177 Mich 45, 57-58; 143 NW2d 48 (1913).
8
Warner v General Motors Corp, 137 Mich App 340, 348; 357 NW2d 689 (1984).
9
Glittenberg v Doughboy Recreational Indus (On Rehearing), 441 Mich 379, 389-390; 491
NW2d 208 (1992).
10
Ghrist, supra at 249, quoting Fredericks v General Motors Corp, 411 Mich 712, 720; 311
NW2d 725 (1981).
11
Id. at 11-12, citing Prentis, supra, Holloway v General Motors Corp (On Rehearing), 403
Mich 614, 621; 271 NW2d 777 (1978).
-2-
production practice was available that would have prevented the harm without significantly
impairing the usefulness or desirability of the product to users.”12
While a design defect claim tests the conduct of the manufacturer, “[a] breach of
warranty claim tests the fitness of the product.”13 To establish a breach of warranty claim, a
plaintiff must “prove a defect attributable to the manufacturer and causal connection between
that defect and the injury or damage of which he complains.”14 Implied warranty and design
defect “involve identical facts and require proof of exactly the same elements,” and therefore,
merge into one cause of action.15
Under the existing statutes and case law in this state, plaintiff has failed to establish a
prima facie case of design defect or breach of implied warranty. There is a rebuttable
presumption that a manufacturer is not liable if the product was in compliance with government
regulations at the time the product was sold. While failure to comply is relevant to proving
negligence, it does not raise a presumption of negligence.16 Plaintiff contends that defendant’s
crib design violated federal regulation,17 thereby creating an issue of fact regarding defendant’s
negligence. However, the cited regulation applies specifically to hardware accessible to a child
from within the crib. Accordingly, plaintiff is unable to rebut the presumption that defendant is
without liability for plaintiff’s injuries.
Plaintiff also failed to rebut defendant’s assertion, at the motion hearing, that the bracket
was a simple part widely used in the industry.18 Plaintiff presented the affidavit of Steven
Ziemba, a certified safety professional, in an attempt to establish that defendant’s crib was
defective. After examining the crib, Ziemba asserted that sharp edges on baby furniture “present
an unreasonable risk of injury,” and therefore, must be finished to eliminate the risk. Ziemba
recommended feasible alternative production practices, such as placing a protective cover or a
“shrouding coating” on the sharp edge. Ziemba further asserted that defendant should have
discovered that the crib contained sharp, unprotected edges in the design or manufacturing
process and that defendant provided inadequate warnings to alert users of the presence of the
sharp edge on the bracket. However, as previously noted, plaintiff failed to establish that the
sharp edges on hardware on the exterior of a crib fall below industry standards.
12
MCL 600.2946(2); see also Gregory, supra at 11.
13
Gregory, supra at 12.
14
Id. at 12, citing Piercefield v Remington Arms Co, 375 Mich 85, 98-99; 133 NW2d 129 (1965).
15
Id. at 12-13, citing Smith v E R Squibb & Sons, Inc, 405 Mich 79, 90; 273 NW2d 476 (1979).
16
MCL 600.2946(4).
17
CFR 1508.6(a).
18
MCL 600.2946(a) (evidence that the product was made within prevailing industry standards is
admissible). Defendant claimed that the same type of bracket had been used on cribs since the
trial judge had been an infant [Hearing Transcript, p 4].
-3-
Manufacturers can also be held liable for manufacturing defects that existed at the time of
manufacture and sale of the product.19 The product “may be evaluated against the
manufacturer’s own production standards, as manifested by that manufacturer’s other like
products.”20 As plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the crib contained any defects in
manufacturing, the trial court properly granted summary disposition on the theory of
manufacturing defect.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
19
Gregory, supra at 11 n 7.
20
Prentis, supra at 683.
-4-
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.
