Court reinstates product liability action against gun manufacturer
Thomas Galecka sent his 10ML Savage back to the manufacturer for a "safety inspection." Since 2005, the 10ML was known to have a design or manufacturing defect in the barrel, and while conducting the inspection, Savage replaced the barrel without informing Galecka. Galecka sued Savage, alleging a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, but the trial judge dismissed, ruling that he had suffered no "loss." The Court of Appeals reversed, pointing out that there are two separate sections of the MCPA: if the plaintiff is only seeking a declaratory judgment or a cease and desist order, he or she need not allege a financial loss--only an unlawful practice. The case was returned to the trial judge for further proceedings.