## Facts

- Charles Lavin bought a boat hoist and canopy frame manufactured by North Central Welding Company, doing business as NuCraft Metal Products (“NuCraft”), and also obtained a vinyl canopy that NuCraft supplied (but did not manufacture).
- NuCraft provided assembly instructions for the hoist and the canopy frame, but provided no installation instructions for attaching the heavy vinyl canopy to the frame.
- Lavin testified that NuCraft’s vice president told him the best way to install the canopy was to raise the pontoon boat as high as possible on the hoist and install the canopy from the boat (and to do so when there was no wind).
- NuCraft’s vice president denied giving installation directions, stated others installed canopies from ladders or docks beside the hoist, but acknowledged that many customers likely got on their boats despite the warnings.
- The hoist displayed multiple warning stickers, including “Danger” and directives such as: “Do not work or play on, around or under hoist with boat in,” “Do not allow people to occupy your craft … while hoist is in raised position,” and “Do not work on craft in raised position.”
- Lavin nevertheless attempted to install the canopy while the pontoon boat was raised on the hoist.
- During the attempted installation, Vanessa Lavin stood on a pontoon seat and held the canopy overhead, lost her balance, fell headfirst into shallow water, and suffered catastrophic spinal-cord injuries.
- The Lavins sued in a products-liability action asserting multiple theories, including negligent design against NuCraft.
- NuCraft moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the negligent-design claim.
- To oppose the motion, the Lavins offered testimony from an engineer who prepared sketches of an alternative design that would allow canopy installation from ground level; the record showed no manufacturer was using that design at the time, and it had not been built or tested.
- The trial court granted summary disposition to NuCraft on negligent design, and the Lavins appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a reasonable, practicable safer alternative design to create a genuine issue of material fact on negligent design.
2. Whether an engineer’s sketched alternative design, without proof it had been built, tested, or used in the industry at the relevant time, can satisfy Michigan’s requirement of a feasible alternative design.
3. Whether the presence of prominent warnings against occupying or working on a craft while the hoist was raised, and the manner of installation used, supported summary disposition on negligent design where feasibility evidence was lacking.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for NuCraft on the negligent-design claim.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that a practicable, safer alternative design was available at the time of sale.
- The court concluded the proffered alternative design consisted of sketches and assertions, without proof of real-world use, development, or testing sufficient to show feasibility.
- Given the absence of adequate alternative-design proof, the negligent-design claim failed as a matter of law under the summary-disposition standard.

## Legal Principles

- A negligent-design products-liability claim requires evidence that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care in adopting a design, including proof that a safer alternative design was reasonable and practicable under the circumstances.
- To show a feasible alternative design, a plaintiff must present more than an idea on paper; evidence should support that the alternative could actually be implemented and would reduce the risk in a workable way.
- In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), courts consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but summary disposition is proper when an essential element lacks evidentiary support.
- Foreseeability that some users will ignore warnings does not, by itself, establish negligent design; warnings and the manner in which the product was used may inform the reasonableness analysis, but plaintiffs must still prove a feasible safer design.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for NuCraft because the Lavins did not produce sufficient evidence that a reasonable and practicable safer alternative design existed at the relevant time; their engineer offered only untested sketches, which did not create a triable issue on negligent design, even though the installation method used contradicted the hoist’s prominent warnings.


Lavin v. Conte, 2017 WL 3159682 (2017)