Barton v. Myers

Michigan Court of Appeals

Barton v. Myers

136 N.W.2d 776, 1 Mich. App. 460

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 1965

DocketDocket 154

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 136 N.W.2d 776 (Barton v. Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barton v. Myers, 136 N.W.2d 776, 1 Mich. App. 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinions

[462]*462Quinn, J.

Gerald Barton was burned while applying defendant Permalastic Products Company’s “Permalastic Contact Bond Cement” to formica sheets. As a reasonable inference from the facts, it appears that the vapors from the cement were ignited by a gas furnace which unexpectedly went on within a short distance of where plaintiff was using the cement. He brought this suit for damages alleging that the defendant Permalastic Products Company was negligent in not providing more warning of the volatility and explosive nature of the product.

At the conclusion of the proofs, the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was granted. The question presented on this appeal is whether or not there was a jury question.

The label on the can which plaintiff used contained the warning: “Caution—Inflammable Mixture—Do not use near fire or flame,” printed in letters approximately 1/4 inch in height. The defendant established by ample proof that the warning complied with the standard of the industry. The plaintiff claims that the warning was not adequate.

The case is governed by Cheli v. Cudahy Brothers Co. (1934), 267 Mich 690, wherein it is said at page 695:

“ 'No one is held liable to a higher degree of care than the average in the trade or business in which he is engaged.’ Ketterer v. Armour & Co., 160 CCA 111, 121 (247 F 921, 931, LRA 1918 D, 798).”

On this record, the trial court properly directed a verdict of no cause for action. Trial court affirmed, with costs to appellee.

J. H. Gillis, P. J., concurred with Quinn, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[462]*462Quinn, J.

Gerald Barton was burned while applying defendant Permalastic Products Company’s “Permalastic Contact Bond Cement” to formica sheets. As a reasonable inference from the facts, it appears that the vapors from the cement were ignited by a gas furnace which unexpectedly went on within a short distance of where plaintiff was using the cement. He brought this suit for damages alleging that the defendant Permalastic Products Company was negligent in not providing more warning of the volatility and explosive nature of the product.

At the conclusion of the proofs, the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was granted. The question presented on this appeal is whether or not there was a jury question.

The label on the can which plaintiff used contained the warning: “Caution—Inflammable Mixture—Do not use near fire or flame,” printed in letters approximately 1/4 inch in height. The defendant established by ample proof that the warning complied with the standard of the industry. The plaintiff claims that the warning was not adequate.

The case is governed by Cheli v. Cudahy Brothers Co. (1934), 267 Mich 690, wherein it is said at page 695:

“ 'No one is held liable to a higher degree of care than the average in the trade or business in which he is engaged.’ Ketterer v. Armour & Co., 160 CCA 111, 121 (247 F 921, 931, LRA 1918 D, 798).”

On this record, the trial court properly directed a verdict of no cause for action. Trial court affirmed, with costs to appellee.

J. H. Gillis, P. J., concurred with Quinn, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.W.2d 776, 1 Mich. App. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-myers-michctapp-1965.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack