COA 374540 TIMOTHY J HOEKER V ARBA INTERNATIONAL LLC Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 1/14/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
TIMOTHY J. HOEKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
January 14, 2026
11:26 AM
v No. 374540
Muskegon Circuit Court
ARBA INTERNATIONAL LLC, LC No. 2022-000569-NP
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and KOROBKIN and BAZZI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this product liability case involving claims of breach of implied warranty and
negligence, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to
defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). We reverse and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arose when plaintiff fell from his electric bicycle and sustained injuries. Plaintiff
alleged that the front forks of his bike buckled, causing him to lose control when he rode over a
speed bump. Plaintiff purchased the bike at issue from defendant, who had imported it from a
manufacturer in China. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging the front fork of his bicycle was defective, and
defendant, despite having received prior complaints from other customers about damaged forks
when they received delivery of their bikes, failed to exercise reasonable care to warn its customers
of the danger. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. It reasoned
that, because plaintiff failed to establish that the manufacturer knew or should have known about
the alleged defect, defendant could not be held liable under MCL 600.2948(3).1 The trial court
1 MCL 600.2948(3) provides:
In a product liability action brought against a manufacturer or seller for
harm allegedly caused by a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, a

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
also reasoned that the complaints from other customers did not put defendant on notice about a
possible defect because those complaints related to damage that the customers discovered when
they received shipment of their bikes, suggesting that the front fork could have been damaged
during shipping. It also found that plaintiff had not provided any authority to support the
conclusion that defendant was obligated to “perform engineering tests on the forks and their
packaging to determine the cause of their deformations.” Plaintiff now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. El-Khalil
v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159; 934 NW2d 665 (2019). “A motion under MCR
2.116(C)(10) . . . tests the factual sufficiency of a claim.” Id. at 160 (emphasis omitted). “When
considering such a motion, a trial court must consider all evidence submitted by the parties in the
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Id. “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10)
may only be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. “A genuine issue of
material fact exists when the record leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might
differ.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition because a genuine
issue of material fact remained as to whether defendant exercised reasonable care to warn plaintiff
and other customers of danger. We agree.
As a preliminary matter, the trial court improperly found that plaintiff’s claim was barred
by MCL 600.2948(3) because plaintiff provided no evidence that the Chinese manufacturer knew
or should have known about the alleged defect. MCL 600.2948(4) provides that “[t]his section
does not limit a manufacturer’s or seller’s duty to use reasonable care in relation to a product after
the product has left the manufacturer’s or seller’s control.” Because plaintiff’s allegations
concerned defendant’s conduct after the product had left its (and the manufacturer’s) control,
MCL 600.2948(3) is inapplicable.
Moreover, while the trial court correctly noted that defendant, as a nonmanufacturer-seller
of the product at issue, is liable under MCL 600.2947(6)(a) if it failed to exercise reasonable care,
it erred in finding that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the matter.
Plaintiff argued below that defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to warn
plaintiff of a problem with the front forks even though it had received multiple prior complaints
from customers that the bikes shipped to them had damaged forks. Interpreting the situation, the
trial court concluded that it was “equally reasonable to conclude that the bikes were damaged by
shipping as they were damaged by a faulty fork.” This conclusion necessarily indicates the trial
manufacturer or seller is not liable unless the plaintiff proves that the manufacturer
knew or should have known about the risk of harm based on the scientific,
technical, or medical information reasonably available at the time the specific unit
of the product left the control of the manufacturer.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
court recognized that there remained an “issue upon which reasonable minds might differ[,]” El-
Khalil, 504 Mich at 159, but nonetheless granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
This was in error. By the trial court’s own reasoning, a genuine issue of material fact remained.
Summary disposition was therefore inappropriate.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi

-- 3 of 3 --