Running car in enclosed garage not obvious risk

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)


  • 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.

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

  • […] Olson at Overlawyered links to a great piece by Daniel Fisher of Forbes. (I blogged on this earlier this […]

  • Around the web, May 28…

    Add the plaintiff-friendly Exxon Shipping v. Baker to the list of Supreme Court decisions some in Congress wish to make even more plaintiff-friendly. [NLJ] Richard Epstein on the Rand Paul-Rachel Maddow hubbub. [Forbes] Michigan appellate court holds 2…