[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Detroit Free Press

The Michigan Supreme Court has stopped a lawsuit that blamed muffler companies for the death of a Brighton man who inhaled car exhaust in a closed garage.

Craig White's family claimed companies that made or marketed a muffler-repair kit had a duty to warn that cars should not be run in a closed space.
The state appeals court kept the lawsuit alive with a 2-1 decision in May. But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling with a one-sentence order today.

The 54-year-old White died in 2005 while working on his Buick. His wife and son returned home and found him in the closed garage with the car jacked up and running.

The Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of an appeals court judge who said it was carbon monoxide that killed White, not the muffler wrap.

http://www.freep.com/article/2010093...muffler-repair

I can't believe that the appellate court revived the case.

[joep]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[BlackTalon]

haha -- muffle repair or not, running the car in the garage with the door closed = bye, bye cruel world!

[BeerBurner]

There is nothing common about sense.

BB.

[Potomac-Greg]

Without actually reading it, I am going to speculate that the product was one that gets cured by heat and it says to wrap it around the leak, and run the car. So the question is, is the wrap maker under some duty to tell someone that you can't run a car in a closed space.

It was the right outcome (not the guy dying, but rather the dismissal of the claim), but compared to some of the ridiculous warning labels I've seen, I can see where someone might argue that this is the sort of thing that is typically identified in a warning.

[Cliff Claven]

it seems to me that the michigan supreme court is dead wrong on this. the statement that it was the CO and not the wrap that killed the victim is silly and flippant and a very simplistic analysis.

if the application instructions on the packaging include an instruction to run the car to facilitate heat curing of the tape, then they should include a warning to do so in a well-ventilated area. it is not reasonable to assume that your average car driver would think of this. moreover it is reasonably likely that users will apply the tape in a closed garage, particularly in a northern climate. i sincerely doubt that the victim in this case is the only person in america who might make this mistake.

the michigan supreme court is more interested in protecting auto parts makers than their customers. yet the manufacturer of the muffler tape is in a much better position than the users of the product to be aware of the dangers arising during the application process.

it is certainly more economic to put the burden on the manufacturer of the muffler fix-it product to warn its customers of the danger than to put the burden on each and every customer to educate him or herself on the complex chemical and physical processes that occur inside an internal combustion engine. it is also better for the economy as a whole to create rules that facilitate consumer trust in products and manufacturers.

[Hunter]

Maybe they should also say something about not applying it to the car while it is in motion........................

I susposed we are still evolving; at least the ones that survive.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Cliff Claven

if the application instructions on the packaging include an instruction to run the car to facilitate heat curing of the tape, then they should include a warning to do so in a well-ventilated area. it is not reasonable to assume that your average car driver would think of this.

This is where I disagree with you. The average driver would not be attempting such a repair. The average driver would take it to a repair facility.

Additionally, I'll wager that the vehicle's owner's manual clearly states that the engine should not be run in an enclosed space for any period of time and likely makes mention of the dangers of carbon monoxide.

A manufacturer should not be held liable for every permutation of stupidity.

[BlackTalon]

Actually the home builder should be sued for not posting a warning sign about running a car in the garage with the door/ windows closed...

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by BlackTalon

Actually the home builder should be sued for not posting a warning sign about running a car in the garage with the door/ windows closed...

I totally disagree. The key manufacturer should warn you not to insert it into the ignition unless you are in an open field.