Comstock v. General Motors Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityNegligenceFailure to warnProximate causeIntervening negligencemanufacturer liabilitylatent defect

Facts

Plaintiff, a mechanic at Ed Lawless Buick, was crushed by a customer's 1953 Buick Roadmaster when assistant service manager Wentworth tried to move it inside the garage and forgot that its power brakes were not working. The evidence showed that General Motors' Buick division knew of failures in 1953 Buick power brake systems caused by defective components, issued dealer bulletins, furnished thousands of replacement kits at its own expense, and instructed dealers to replace defective units when cars came in. The record also showed no warning was given by General Motors to owners of affected cars, including the owner here, before the brake failure. After the accident, the defective brake unit in this car was replaced with a General Motors-furnished replacement unit at no cost to the owner.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find General Motors negligent and its negligence a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury despite Wentworth's intervening negligence in driving the car after forgetting it had no brakes. More specifically, the question was whether Wentworth's negligence was a superseding cause as a matter of law.

Rule

A manufacturer of a product dangerous to life if defectively made or maintained in commerce may be found negligent for defective design, manufacture, assembly, inspection, or for failing to warn of a latent danger. When the manufacturer learns shortly after sale that a latent defect makes the product hazardous to life, it has a duty to take all reasonable means to convey effective warning to purchasers. An intervening negligent act does not become a superseding cause if the original negligence remains operative, the resulting injury is not different in kind from that risk, and the intervening negligence was reasonably foreseeable; proximate cause in such circumstances is generally for the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Shore Utility Vehicles sells a new line of delivery vans in Milwaukee. Three weeks after the vans reach customers, the manufacturer learns that a hidden steering-coupler defect can suddenly disable steering at highway speeds; it sends technical bulletins and free repair kits to dealers but does not contact owners, and a van later loses steering and injures a cyclist before its owner had any warning or repair.

If the cyclist sues the manufacturer for negligence, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority recognized an independent post-sale negligence theory. When a manufacturer learns shortly after marketing that a latent defect makes the product hazardous to life, it has a duty to take all reasonable means to convey effective warning to purchasers, not merely to dealers. Liability does not depend solely on proving negligent manufacture at the time of sale. (Derived from Comstock v. General Motors Corp. (n.d.).)