Failure to warn; MCL 600.2948(3); Post-sale reasonable care; MCL 600.2948(4); Nonmanufacturer seller liability; MCL 600.2947(6)(a)

The court held that summary disposition was improper because MCL 600.2948(3) did not bar plaintiff’s theory and the record revealed a genuine issue of material fact on whether defendant exercised reasonable care to warn after receiving prior fork-damage complaints. Plaintiff alleged he crashed when his e-bike’s front forks buckled over a speed bump, and he sued the importing seller for breach of implied warranty and negligence based on an alleged failure to warn after prior customers reported fork damage upon delivery. The trial court granted summary disposition, reasoning plaintiff failed to show the Chinese manufacturer knew or should have known of the risk under MCL 600.2948(3) and that the prior complaints suggested shipping damage rather than a defect. On appeal, the court held the trial court misapplied MCL 600.2948(3) because plaintiff’s allegations targeted defendant’s conduct “after the product had left” the seller’s control, and MCL 600.2948(4) expressly provides that the section “does not limit a manufacturer’s or seller’s duty to use reasonable care” after the product leaves its control. It further held that the trial court’s own conclusion that it was “equally reasonable” to infer shipping damage or a faulty fork showed “reasonable minds might differ,” which is the definition of a genuine issue of material fact, making summary disposition inappropriate. Reversed and remanded.