From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edgcumbe v. Cessna

Michigan Court of Appeals
Sep 19, 1988
171 Mich. App. 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)

Summary

In Edgcumbe v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 171 Mich.App. 573, 575, 430 N.W.2d 788 (1988), this Court explained that " [t]he requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(e), that the class action be superior to other methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice, is an outgrowth of the equitable heritage of class actions and a recognition of the practical limitations on the judiciary's capability to resolve disputes."

Summary of this case from Duncan v. State

Opinion

Docket No. 97273.

Decided September 19, 1988.

Clark Shanahan, and Mark J. Van Epps, for plaintiff.

Zamplas, Paskin, Nagi, Baxter, Johnson Walker, P.C. (by Jeannette A. Paskin and Leonard Nagi), for defendant.

Before: MAHER, P.J., and SHEPHERD and K. TERTZAG, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Plaintiff appeals the denial of certification for his class-action suit. We affirm.

Plaintiff purchased a used airplane manufactured by defendant. Within the first year of his ownership, plaintiff discovered iron or metal filings in the airplane's engine oil. The filings were traced to a flaking off of metal from the camshaft, which plaintiff alleged was caused by a design defect of the particular camshaft. Plaintiff brought the instant action for $5,500 spent on engine repair including replacement of the camshaft. Plaintiff sought class action certification because there have allegedly been three hundred reports made to the Federal Aviation Authority concerning engine problems arising out of this particular camshaft on this type of airplane.

MCR 3.501 governs certification for class action suits:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members in a class action only if:

(a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(b) there are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members;

(c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class;

(d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the class; and

(e) the maintenance of the action as a class action will be superior to other available methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice. [MCR 3.501(A)(1).]

The requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(e), that the class action be superior to other methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice, is an outgrowth of the equitable heritage of class actions and a recognition of the practical limitations on the judiciary's capability to resolve disputes. Grigg v Michigan National Bank, 405 Mich. 148, 184; 274 N.W.2d 752 (1979). Such matters as diversity of defenses, counterclaims, etc., may bear upon the determination of whether a class action suit will promote the convenient administration of justice. Grigg, supra. The relevant concern in determining the convenient administration of justice is whether the issues are so disparate as to make a class action suit unmanageable. Dix v American Bankers Life Assurance Co of Florida, 429 Mich. 410, 419; 415 N.W.2d 206 (1987).

The trial court ruled that the requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(e) had not been met by plaintiff. We agree. Defendant, at the time that the airplane model in question was marketed, had between 500 and 750 dealers throughout all fifty states. The interplay of the laws of the various states on product liability and warranties would make adjudication in a Michigan state court, at the least, cumbersome. An affidavit from an employee of defendant states that 6,164 airplanes were sold that utilized the particular camshaft design in question.

Further, each potential class member may present unique factual and legal issues that would make a class action lawsuit inconvenient. Using plaintiff as an example, plaintiff bought his aircraft in a used condition. What role this will play factually and as to the application of warranties presents a complicated legal question. Additionally, plaintiff has used his airplane as part of a commercial venture. The increased use may alter the rate at which the alleged defect developed. Plaintiff's damages may be affected in a way that noncommercial plaintiffs to the suit would not be affected. The trial court was correct in ruling that it would not serve the convenient administration of justice to certify the instant case as a class action.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Edgcumbe v. Cessna

Michigan Court of Appeals
Sep 19, 1988
171 Mich. App. 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)

In Edgcumbe v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 171 Mich.App. 573, 575, 430 N.W.2d 788 (1988), this Court explained that " [t]he requirement of MCR 3.501(A)(1)(e), that the class action be superior to other methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice, is an outgrowth of the equitable heritage of class actions and a recognition of the practical limitations on the judiciary's capability to resolve disputes."

Summary of this case from Duncan v. State
Case details for

Edgcumbe v. Cessna

Case Details

Full title:EDGCUMBE v CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 19, 1988

Citations

171 Mich. App. 573 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
430 N.W.2d 788

Citing Cases

Lee v. Grand Rapids Board of Education

Matters such as diversity of defenses, counterclaims, et cetera may bear upon the determination of whether a…

Duncan v. State

(f) whether members of the class have a significant interest in controlling the prosecution or defense of…