Product misuse under MCL 600.2947(2); Iliades v Dieffenbacher N Am, Inc; Design-defect standards; Rebuttable presumption of nonliability under MCL 600.2946(4); Compliance with federal safety standards; Alternative feasible designs; Failure to warn under MCL 600.2948(2); Greene v AP Prods, Ltd; Owens v Allis-Chalmers; Obvious risks

Holding that defendant-Ford was entitled to summary disposition because the decedents’ deaths resulted from the driver’s failure to place the vehicle in park, not from a product defect, the court affirmed dismissal of all product liability claims. The case arose when the vehicle rolled into a pond after the driver exited with the engine running and transmission in drive, causing two passengers to drown. Plaintiff, representing their estates, alleged design, manufacturing, and failure-to-warn defects, contending the vehicle lacked a “return-to-park” system, automatic brake, or effective audible and visual warnings. Ford moved for summary disposition, arguing misuse barred the claims under MCL 600.2947(2) and that the vehicle complied with all federal safety standards. The trial court found product misuse was a factual issue but held plaintiff failed to establish a design or warning defect. On appeal, the court agreed, explaining that misuse generally operates as a defense, not a claim, and that a manufacturer’s duty extends only to eliminating “‘unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury,’” not to guarding against all misuse. It held that Ford was entitled to the presumption of nonliability under MCL 600.2946(4) because the vehicle met all applicable federal safety standards. Plaintiff’s expert conceded that the proposed alternative designs, automatic parking brake or return-to-park feature, were not required by regulation and defendant’s expert testified they were uncommon in vehicles of that model year. The court found no evidence that the design was defective or that omission of such features rendered the product unreasonably unsafe. As to failure to warn, the court held that the risk of exiting a car left in drive was “‘obvious to a reasonably prudent’” driver under MCL 600.2948(2), noting that the owner’s manual warned, “Always fully apply the parking brake and make sure you shift into park (P). Failure to follow this instruction could result in personal injury or death.” As to plaintiff’s reliance on Owens, it ruled that MCL 600.2948(2) displaced the common-law rule principles that governed in that case.