Opinion · Michigan Court of Appeals
Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.
Hensley v. MUSKIN CORP., 65 Mich. App. 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Michigan Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- Michigan
- Date
- 1975-08-18
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- diving from a 7-foot high garage into a 4-foot deep pool is dangerous
- diving from a seven-foot high garage into a four-foot deep pool is dangerous
- no duty to warn plaintiff that he should not dive into pool when twenty-eight-year-old plaintiff had some swimming experience and knew the pool was only four feet deep
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 19 opinions
Plaintiff, George Hensley, was permanently injured in a tragic accident. On June 20, 1971, he dove off a 7-foot high garage into a 4-foot deep swimming pool. The pool was owned by plaintiff’s brother-in-law, Glenn Smith, and was located in Smith’s backyard. Hensley sued the pool manufacturer, The Muskin Corporation, the retail seller, Federal’s, Inc., and his brother-in-law, alleging breach of various warranties and negligence, as well as a theory of strict liability.
In essence, plaintiff alleges that defendants were under a duty to warn him that he should not dive into the pool. The record reveals that plaintiff was a 28-year-old person with some swimming experience and that he helped assemble the pool and knew full well that it was only 4 feet deep. Under these circumstances we feel that the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment for all defendants. Neither the manufacturer, the seller, nor the brother-in-law were under any duty to warn this plaintiff of an obviously dangerous use of an otherwise nondangerous product. Fisher v Johnson Milk Co, 383 Mich 158; 174 NW2d 752 (1970), Colosimo v May Department Co, 466 F2d 1234 (CA 3, 1972).
Affirmed. Costs to defendants.