Is there an employer duty to keep a machine safe, it depends.

Holding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to ensure the press had the proper guards, the court concluded that the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant-Mian in this negligence action. Plaintiff, an underage employee of defendant-Century Tool & Die, severely injured his hands while operating a power press that did not have point of operation guards. Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that defendant owned the power press and had a duty to ensure that the press had the proper point of operation guards. Later, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that he did not own the power press - he had given it to plaintiff's employer, and it was plaintiff's employer's duty, not defendant's, to ensure that the press had the proper point of operation guards. Plaintiff argued that defendant did own the power press, not plaintiff's employer and, as set forth in Ghrist defendant had a duty to ensure proper guards were on the press. Plaintiff claimed genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether defendant was the owner of the press and whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty to provide a safe press. The court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred when it improperly resolved a genuine issue of disputed fact by concluding that defendant gave the press to plaintiff's employer. The court held that in light of the evidence presented, including the deposition testimony from several witnesses, reasonable minds could differ on the issue whether defendant owned the press at the time plaintiff sustained his injuries. The trial court may not make findings of fact in deciding a summary disposition motion. However, the error was harmless. Regardless of whether defendant owned the press or had formerly owned the press, defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to ensure that point of operation guards were in place. Plaintiff's reliance on Ghrist in support of his argument that defendant owed him such a duty was misplaced. If defendant was the owner of the press, he could not be held liable for plaintiff's injuries. In light of plaintiff's employer's duties imposed by MIOSHA, it was not foreseeable to defendant that his press would be used in an unsafe manner rendering it defective. If defendant was the former owner of the press, he could not be held liable for the same reason - no duty was owed to plaintiff. Thus, whether defendant was the owner or former owner of the press, plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of fact showing that defendant owed him a duty imposed by law to ensure that the press had the proper point of operation guards. Contrary to plaintiff's claims, the cases of Hart and Smith were inapposite. In short, defendant did not assume a duty to plaintiff as demonstrated by an affirmative action. Like the defendant in Smith, defendant did not voluntarily and actively undertake to assist plaintiff's employer in its obligation to provide a safe place to work for its employees. Affirmed.