Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North America Inc.

Michigan Supreme Court · 2018 · Torts

915 N.W.2d 338

Updated July 31, 2026

tortsproducts liabilityproduct misuseforeseeabilitystatutory interpretationreasonably foreseeablemanufacturer liabilityMCL 600.2947(2)

Facts

Plaintiff, an experienced press operator, was injured while operating a 500-ton press manufactured by defendant. Operators were instructed to place the press in manual mode before reaching into it to remove fallen parts, and to use a parts grabber; plaintiff instead reached into the press while it remained in automatic mode and positioned his body behind the light curtain. Once the light curtain was no longer interrupted, the press resumed its automatic cycle and trapped him. Plaintiff sued the manufacturer, and the manufacturer argued that plaintiff's conduct was product misuse that was not reasonably foreseeable.

Issue

Under MCL 600.2947(2), how should a court determine manufacturer liability when an injury is caused by alleged product misuse? More specifically, must the court first determine whether the plaintiff misused the product and then assess foreseeability using the common-law meaning of "reasonably foreseeable," rather than a criminal gross-negligence standard?

Rule

MCL 600.2947(2) establishes a two-part test for manufacturer liability arising from product misuse: a court must first decide whether there was misuse of the product, and if so, must then decide whether that particular misuse was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. "Misuse" is defined by MCL 600.2945(e), while "reasonably foreseeable" carries its common-law meaning: whether a reasonable person could anticipate that the given event might occur under certain conditions. In the product-misuse context, the crucial inquiry is whether, at the time the product was manufactured, the manufacturer was aware, or should have been aware, of that particular misuse.

🔒

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.

At a packaging plant in Grand Rapids, Nora Kim was injured while clearing a jam in a shrink-wrap machine made by Red Oak Fabrication. The machine's manual and her supervisor instructed operators to switch the machine out of cycle mode before reaching inside, but Nora reached in while it remained cycling and was hurt when the rollers restarted.

In Red Oak Fabrication's motion for summary disposition under Michigan's product-misuse statute, what issue must the court decide first?

Explanation. The majority held that MCL 600.2947(2) creates a sequential two-part inquiry. A court must first determine whether the plaintiff misused the product under MCL 600.2945(e). Only if misuse is found does the court decide whether that particular misuse was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. The court may not skip directly to a broad foreseeability inquiry or substitute a criminal gross-negligence standard. (Derived from Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North America Inc. (n.d.).)