The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.
Michigan Court of Appeals

Hensley v. THE MUSKIN CORP.

Docket 22899·Judge: Bashara, Gillis, Cavanagh·Attorney: Benton, Hicks, Beltz, Behm & Nickola, for plaintiffs., Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt, Watters, Stanczyk & Pedersen (by John A. DeMoss and Charles A. Huckabay), for defendant The Muskin Corporation., Robert P. Keil, for defendant Federal’s, Inc., Milliken & Magee, for defendant Smith.19 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 65 Mich. App. 662 (1975) 238 N.W.2d 362 HENSLEY v. THE MUSKIN CORPORATION Doc...
  • HENSLEY v. THE MUSKIN CORPORATION
  • Michigan Court of Appeals.
  • PER CURIAM.

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 65 Mich. App. 662 (1975) 238 N.W.2d 362 HENSLEY v. THE MUSKIN CORPORATION Doc...
  • HENSLEY v. THE MUSKIN CORPORATION
  • Michigan Court of Appeals.
  • PER CURIAM.

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

65 Mich. App. 662 (1975)
238 N.W.2d 362

HENSLEY
v.
THE MUSKIN CORPORATION

Docket No. 22899.

Michigan Court of Appeals.

Decided August 18, 1975.

Benton, Hicks, Beltz, Behm & Nickola, for plaintiffs.

Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt, Watters, Stanczyk & *663 Pedersen (by John A. DeMoss and Charles A. Huckabay), for defendant The Muskin Corporation.

Robert P. Keil, for defendant Federal's, Inc.

Milliken & Magee, for defendant Smith.

Before: BASHARA, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and M.F. CAVANAGH, JJ.

Leave to appeal denied, 395 Mich 776.

PER CURIAM.

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.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap