Greene v. a P Products, Ltd
475 Mich. 502 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan statute MCL 600.2948(2), a manufacturer has no duty to warn of a product's material risks that are or should be obvious to a reasonably prudent user, and this extends to not having to warn of the specific type or severity of injury that could result from that obvious risk.
Facts:
- In April 1999, plaintiff purchased a spray bottle of African Pride Ginseng Miracle Wonder 8 Oil, Hair and Body Mist.
- The product was marketed as a spray-on body and hair moisturizer containing eight natural oils, along with other chemical ingredients.
- The bottle's label cautioned against spraying the oil near sparks or an open flame but did not include a warning that it was harmful if swallowed or should be kept out of reach of children.
- Plaintiff left the bottle of hair oil within reach of her 11-month-old son, Keimer Easley.
- Keimer Easley obtained the bottle and proceeded to ingest and inhale an unknown quantity of the hair oil.
- Approximately one month later, Keimer Easley died from multisystem organ failure secondary to chemical pneumonitis caused by hydrocarbon ingestion.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a products-liability action against A.P. Products (manufacturer), Revlon Consumer Products Corporation (acquirer), and Pro Care Beauty Supply (seller) in a Michigan trial court.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing they had no duty to warn of an obvious risk.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary disposition.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for trial.
- Defendants, as appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer have a legal duty under MCL 600.2948(2) to warn that ingesting or inhaling a hair oil product could be fatal when the general material risk of harm from such actions is obvious to a reasonably prudent product user?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, J.
No. Under MCL 600.2948(2), a manufacturer has no duty to warn of a material risk that is or should be obvious to a reasonably prudent product user. The statute only requires the material risk itself to be obvious, not the specific injuries or consequences that might result from that risk. The court determined that the material risk of harm associated with ingesting or inhaling a hair and body oil—a product not intended for consumption—is obvious to a reasonably prudent user. The presence of natural oils does not negate the obvious risk, especially given the inclusion of other ingredients like paraffin oil and unfamiliar chemical names. Therefore, defendants had no duty to warn that ingestion could be fatal.
Concurring - Weaver, J.
Concurs with the majority's result and analysis, except for Part IV of the opinion, which is a response to Justice Cavanagh's dissent.
Dissenting - Cavanagh, J.
Yes. The majority misinterprets the statute's reference to 'a material risk.' The dissent argues that the obviousness of one risk (e.g., becoming ill) does not absolve the manufacturer of the duty to warn of a different, non-obvious, and more severe material risk (e.g., death). Because a reasonably prudent user would act differently knowing a product could be fatal versus merely causing illness, the risk of death is a separate material risk that must be assessed for obviousness. Equating all levels of risk ignores the statutory language and undermines consumer protection by allowing manufacturers to conceal hidden, severe dangers.
Dissenting - Kelly, J.
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's interpretation of the law, this dissent argues that its application to the facts is incorrect and that the issue should go to a jury. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the risk of death from ingesting the product was obvious to a reasonably prudent user. The product's label listed seemingly harmless and edible ingredients like avocado oil, coconut oil, and vitamins, which could mislead a consumer into believing it was not highly toxic. Therefore, the court should not have decided the obviousness of the fatal risk as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Michigan's statutory 'obvious danger' doctrine in products liability, narrowing the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn. By holding that the duty applies to the obviousness of the general risk of misuse, not the specific potential consequences, the ruling provides a strong defense for manufacturers. It makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in failure-to-warn claims where the misuse of a product is self-evidently dangerous, even if the ultimate harm is unexpectedly severe. The case sets a precedent that consumers are expected to understand the general dangers of misusing non-ingestible products, and manufacturers are not required to list all conceivable ramifications of such misuse.
