Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.

238 N.W.2d 362, 65 Mich. App. 662, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1009

Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided August 18, 1975·No. Docket 22899·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, George Hensley, was permanently injured in a tragic accident. On June 20, 1971, he dove off a 7-foot high garage into a 4-foot deep swimming pool. The pool was owned by plaintiff’s brother-in-law, Glenn Smith, and was located in Smith’s backyard. Hensley sued the pool manufacturer, The Muskin Corporation, the retail seller, Federal’s, Inc., and his brother-in-law, alleging breach of various warranties and negligence, as well as a theory of strict liability.

In essence, plaintiff alleges that defendants were under a duty to warn him that he should not dive into the pool. The record reveals that plaintiff was a 28-year-old person with some swimming experience and that he helped assemble the pool and knew full well that it was only 4 feet deep. Under these circumstances we feel that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment for all defendants. Neither the manufacturer, the seller, nor the brother-in-law were under any duty to warn this plaintiff of an obviously dangerous use of an otherwise nondangerous product. Fisher v Johnson Milk Co, 383 Mich 158; 174 NW2d 752 (1970), Colosimo v May Department Co, 466 F2d 1234 (CA 3, 1972).

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, George Hensley, was permanently injured in a tragic accident. On June 20, 1971, he dove off a 7-foot high garage into a 4-foot deep swimming pool. The pool was owned by plaintiff’s brother-in-law, Glenn Smith, and was located in Smith’s backyard. Hensley sued the pool manufacturer, The Muskin Corporation, the retail seller, Federal’s, Inc., and his brother-in-law, alleging breach of various warranties and negligence, as well as a theory of strict liability.

In essence, plaintiff alleges that defendants were under a duty to warn him that he should not dive into the pool. The record reveals that plaintiff was a 28-year-old person with some swimming experience and that he helped assemble the pool and knew full well that it was only 4 feet deep. Under these circumstances we feel that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment for all defendants. Neither the manufacturer, the seller, nor the brother-in-law were under any duty to warn this plaintiff of an obviously dangerous use of an otherwise nondangerous product. Fisher v Johnson Milk Co, 383 Mich 158; 174 NW2d 752 (1970), Colosimo v May Department Co, 466 F2d 1234 (CA 3, 1972).

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP., 238 N.W.2d 362, 65 Mich. App. 662, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1009 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

238 N.W.2d 362 (Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.