LOUIS S JUREK V ROGER ROBERTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LOUIS S. JUREK and PATSY L. JUREK,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 1996
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 182843
LC No. 91-4828-NP
MACK TRUCKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, and
ROGER ROBERTS, ROBERTS TRUCKING
COMPANY, GUARDO COMPANY, BILL
KETTLEWELL EXCAVATING COMPANY,
DELKAMP TRUCK CENTER, MV DISPOSAL,
GAYLORD MOTORS, MJL TRUCK SALES,
and M & B ENTERPRISES,
Defendants.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Markey and T. G. Kavanagh,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal the circuit court order granting defendant Mack Trucks, Inc’s, motion for
summary disposition. Plaintiffs raise several issues on appeal, contending that summary disposition was
precluded by questions of material fact as to whether defendant acted as a reasonably prudent seller in
this case. We affirm.
The essential facts are concisely set out in the trial court’s written opinion:
In short, Plaintiff was injured [in 1988] while in the process of loading a container onto a
1977 Ford LT 9000 truck. [Defendant] Mack Trucks had repossessed the truck and
sold it to a third-party wholesale dealer in 1986. The truck had been modified into a
roll-off configuration by another party prior to [defendant] Mack acquiring and selling it.
* Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Plaintiff claims that [defendant] Mack negligently placed the vehicle into the stream of
commerce when they knew or should have known that the lift, the hydraulic system and
hydraulic controls of the modified roll-off system were defective.
A defendant seller owes a general duty of care to a plaintiff user. However, as the trial court
noted, the defendant in this case sold to a wholesaler, and it was the wholesaler that sold the truck to
the plaintiff user. Even assuming arguendo that defendant had a duty to exercise the care of a
reasonably prudent seller on the facts of this case, there was insufficient evidence that defendant
breached the general standard of care. Defendant was not the manufacturer of the truck, and defendant
did not modify the vehicle. Plaintiff’s expert testified that the alleged defect was a modification of the
truck and that the defect was latent A manufacturer or seller owes a duty to warn or inspect a product
if he has reason to know or can readily ascertain that it is defective. Stachurski v K Mart,180 Mich
App 564; 567;447 NW2d 830 (1989). There is no evidence here that defendant had reason to know
or could readily have ascertained the alleged defect. The trial court properly granted summary
disposition.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Thomas Giles Kavanagh
-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.
