Running car in enclosed garage not obvious risk

by Walter Olson on May 25, 2010

So thinks a Michigan appeals court, reinstating (over a dissent) a suit against a maker of a muffler repair kit which allegedly should have warned of the danger of carbon monoxide emitted by the car under repair. [Pero, White v. Victor majority and dissent (PDF)] (& welcome Daniel Fisher, Forbes readers)

{ 2 trackbacks }

More On Michigan Case: “Who Knew Carbon Monoxide Kills”? | American Courthouse
05.27.10 at 3:23 pm
PointOfLaw Forum
05.28.10 at 9:11 am


1 Ron Miller 05.26.10 at 7:47 am

That is not what the court is saying. The court agrees that reasonable fact-finder may ultimately conclude that defendants are correct that a reasonably prudent person would know that car exhaust contains carbon monoxide that could cause injury. Defendant provided no evidence to support the remedy it sought. It STILL may win on a motion for summary judgment. Just not now with no evidence.

2 E-Bell 05.27.10 at 10:48 am

Up next: summary judgment inappropriate because defendant failed to present evidence that the sky is blue.

Comments on this entry are closed.