MCL 600.2945(h); Production defined; MCL 600.2945(i); Chapter 29 of the Revised Judicature Act; Negligence as a theory of liability in a product liability action rather than a separate claim; Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co.; Failure to warn; MCL 600.2948(2); A “material risk” defined; Greene v. AP Prods., Ltd.; Design defect; Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc.; Bouverette v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.; MCL 600.2946(2); MCL 600.2947(5) & (6)

Holding that the defendants were properly granted summary disposition on plaintiff’s failure to warn and design defect product liability claims related to a crossbow, the court affirmed. Plaintiff purchased the crossbow from the Jenkins-defendants (doing business as The Archery Spot). It was manufactured by defendant-Bowtech. When he took a practice shot in the back room of the store, a portion of his thumb was severed by the bowstring. On appeal, the court noted that his claims against the defendants were governed by Chapter 29 of the Revised Judicature Act. His action was a product liability action. “Although he may allege negligence as part of his product liability action, such an assertion serves as a theory of liability, rather than a separate claim.” The trial court relied on MCL 600.2948(2) in dismissing his failure to warn claims. The court concluded that it did not err in ruling that “defendants owed plaintiff no duty to warn. It is common knowledge that a crossbow is a weapon that uses a string to propel a bolt, or arrow, at high speeds. It follows, then, that one in a position similar to that of plaintiff should recognize that shooting a crossbow when fingers are placed in front of the string, could lead to injury.” Further, he failed to “explain why the Jenkins defendants would have a duty to warn him of the dangers of using the crossbow, or could be liable for allegedly preventing him from reading the manual or other warnings provided with [it], when under MCL 600.2948(2), Bowtech had no duty to warn of the material risks associated with using” it. As to his design defect claims, plaintiff did not “produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the crossbow’s design or allegedly safer alternative designs.” The printout he presented about a “GripGuard” and the manual for a prior type of crossbow manufactured by Bowtech only showed that “an alternative design may have existed.” He presented no evidence or expert testimony that such an alternative design would have actually prevented his injury “without impairing the usefulness or desirability of the crossbow, or that it would have been technically feasible at the time the crossbow he purchased was produced.”