Thomas M. Kavanagh

The case involved a dispute over riparian rights on Gun Lake in Michigan, where defendant landowners planned to subdivide their waterfront property into many lots, dig canals through their riparian parcels to connect non-waterfront lots to the lake, and grant those back-lot buyers access rights and purported riparian privileges. Other lakefront owners sued for a declaratory judgment that the plan violated their own riparian rights by increasing lake use and altering the shoreline. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision for the defendants, holding that a riparian owner may excavate a canal on their own land and convey access easements to inland lots without automatically infringing other owners' rights, because riparian privileges attach only to land touching the water and mere added usage or potential pollution does not by itself constitute an unreasonable invasion. The court reasoned that any actual adverse effect on fellow riparians would be a factual question, and existing law does not empower lakefront owners to limit public recreational access through such developments.

propertyenvironment

The case involved a worker who had been awarded permanent partial disability benefits under the workmen's compensation act and later received unemployment compensation benefits that were reduced by the amount of those workmen's compensation payments under section 27n of the employment security act. The plaintiff argued that the reduction violated equal protection through unreasonable classifications among benefit claimants, deprived him of vested property rights without due process, impaired contractual obligations, and applied the statute retroactively. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings upholding the deduction, concluding that unemployment compensation benefits confer no vested or contractual rights because they are subject to legislative amendment, that the statutory classifications were reasonable, and that the provision operated prospectively on benefits received after its effective date.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Klein v. Wagenheim, plaintiff George Klein sued defendant Albert Wagenheim for injuries from a 1961 truck collision, with his wife Olga Klein joining for loss of consortium; the cases were consolidated. After trial, the jury requested that testimony be read back during deliberations, but the trial judge declined, stating it was improper to read only part of the testimony and suggesting the jury continue deliberating instead. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding prejudicial error, but the Michigan Supreme Court held that although the judge's blanket refusal of partial readback was legally incorrect, it did not constitute reversible error because he did not foreclose the possibility entirely and directed further jury efforts. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the trial judgment.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over payment for building materials supplied to rebuild a barn destroyed by fire on property that Jackson Vibrators had sold to the Creggs under a land contract. The trial court found that Jackson had authorized the Creggs to proceed with reconstruction and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as a third-party beneficiary under the contract's insurance and rebuilding provisions, entering judgment against Jackson. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding there was no unconditional promise or agency relationship. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the trial court's factual findings on authorization and liability were not against the clear preponderance of the evidence and therefore reinstated the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

propertyprocedure

The case Clark v. Dalman concerned a negligence suit brought by plaintiff Robert Clark, an inspector for the engineering firm overseeing repairs to a city water tank, after he slipped and fell on a greasy coating (NO-OX-ID) applied by defendant contractor Glen Dalman without advance notice to the engineers. Clark alleged breach of contract for failing to notify and negligence for not warning about the slippery, hard-to-see condition that created a hazard during inspection. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on both counts, finding no basis for tort liability from nonfeasance of a contract and that Clark was contributorily negligent as a matter of law; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the judgment on the ground that Clark, whose job was to discover conditions, could not reasonably rely on any assumed safety and failed to take precautions before entering the tank.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a disabled World War II veteran's request for a separate property tax assessment and a $2,000 homestead exemption under Michigan's general property tax act on his two-fifths undivided interest in a Detroit residence that he and his wife occupied as their homestead, with the remaining three-fifths interest held by his wife. The trial court denied relief, finding no partition in fact of the property, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that ruling after the Court of Appeals had reversed it. The court held that because the owners shared the entire premises without any division restricting control to a specific portion, the exemption could not be applied to the veteran's aliquot share alone and the full assessed value of the property had to be considered for tax purposes. The decision relied on prior attorney general opinions and case law interpreting the statutory requirement for partition in fact before an undivided interest could qualify separately for the veterans' exemption.

taxesproperty