Clark J. Adams

In Hayes v. Coleman, plaintiff Paul Hayes, a pedestrian, sued defendants Louis Coleman, Faj’ Russell, and William Albrecht for damages after being injured in a July 1949 intersection collision in Detroit when Coleman’s car was pushed into a utility pole, crushing his leg and requiring amputation. A jury awarded Hayes damages, and defendants Russell and Albrecht appealed, claiming errors in the trial court’s jury instructions on proximate cause, the handling of a witness’s testimony about settling a related claim, and prejudicial statements by plaintiff’s counsel during closing argument. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions, though repetitive, were not unduly prejudicial when viewed as a whole, that the witness testimony was admissible, and that counsel’s comments had a factual basis in the record without warranting reversal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Louis Havens, a projectionist and member of an out-of-town union local, who worked in Detroit theaters under a closed-shop contract held by Local 199 but was denied membership after complaining to the international union and newspapers about the local's practices. After his application was rejected and he was removed from his job at the Fine Arts Theatre, Havens sued the local, its officers, and the theater owner to enjoin interference with his employment and recover damages for lost earnings. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that unions exercising a labor monopoly must admit reasonably qualified applicants and cannot arbitrarily deprive individuals of the right to earn a livelihood. The court ordered Havens restored to his position, enjoined enforcement of the closed-shop agreement against him, and directed that the case be transferred for determination of damages if any. This outcome rested on the principle that such unions are affected with a public interest and their arbitrary actions may be judicially remedied.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Vanderwall v. Goodwin, plaintiff Doris Vanderwall sued defendant contractor Carl E. Goodwin & Sons for injuries sustained when her husband's car crossed M-21 and entered a ditch after stopping at the terminus of newly constructed US-31; the declaration alleged common-law negligence and breach of contractual duties to warn of the hazard. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss both counts, finding no duty existed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the contractor had no legal obligation to warn of a hazard on M-21, which it did not create or control and which lay outside the contract's scope, as state law placed supervision of highways with the commissioner; the contract required warnings only within the US-31 section and at points of hazard inside it, and any deficiencies in the stop sign were not a proximate cause since the driver stopped before proceeding. The court held that the alleged facts showed no breach of contractual obligations causally related to the injuries.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved 18 homeowners who purchased newly built houses from Currier Lumber Company and its subsidiaries in 1942, alleging that defects such as peeling paint, cracked basements, and leaks resulted from the builder's failure to construct the homes in a good, workmanlike manner and in compliance with Federal Housing Administration requirements and local building codes, as promised in their purchase contracts. The plaintiffs sought damages for repair costs after the homes were conveyed by warranty deed. The trial court, sitting without a jury, awarded judgments to the plaintiffs based on evidence from the homeowners and expert witnesses attributing the issues to poor workmanship. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the construction covenant in the contracts was not merged into the deeds and that the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent evidence and not against the preponderance of the proof, despite conflicting testimony about soil conditions and drainage.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a fire warden seeking workers' compensation benefits for a coronary thrombosis that occurred after several days of strenuous firefighting during the fire season. The administrative commission awarded medical and hospital expenses under part 7 of the workmen's compensation act, treating the condition as an occupational disease arising from employment. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the award, reasoning that the plaintiff's preexisting arteriosclerosis combined with the normal but strenuous duties of the job did not constitute a compensable disability, as there was no fortuitous event and the exertion was not unusual to the employment.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over the sale of real estate in Michigan where the buyer, Meta Olga Escher, sought to rescind the purchase after discovering that the property boundaries did not match the seller's representations regarding lake frontage and a trout stream. The seller, Joseph P. Bender, had conveyed the land via warranty deed after an agreement requiring marketable title of record, but a survey revealed discrepancies, and the seller's claim to additional land relied on adverse possession without a recorded judicial determination. The trial court set aside the conveyance due to misrepresentation and mistake, finding the title unmarketable because it depended on unrecorded adverse possession rather than record title. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the seller failed to provide the required marketable title of record as stipulated in the sales agreement.

property