Michigan
How Barker v. Lull applies in Michigan: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
In Michigan, the principles established in Barker v. Lull regarding product liability, particularly the consumer expectations test, are adopted. The state recognizes the importance of assessing whether a product is defectively designed based on the reasonable expectations of consumers.
Michigan follows a modified version of the Barker framework, using both the consumer expectations test and the risk-utility test to analyze design defect claims.
The Michigan Supreme Court upheld that a manufacturer can be held liable for defective design if the product is unreasonably dangerous to users under the consumer expectations test.
This case emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate the defect in design contributes to the unreasonably dangerous condition, aligning with Barker's principles.
The court reiterated that Michigan courts adopt both consumer expectation and risk-utility tests for evaluating design defects.
Michigan's approach aligns with federal standards in recognizing both consumer expectations and risk-utility tests for design defects. However, Michigan may offer a more plaintiff-friendly interpretation by allowing a broader set of criteria for jury evaluation.
Questions on Michigan's specific standard for product liability, particularly related to Barker, are relevant bar exam topics, especially concerning the distinctions between design and manufacturing defects.