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

The case involved a finance company that sued two borrowers to recover balances on loans after extending credit and advancing new cash based on materially false financial statements provided by the borrowers. The borrowers later received bankruptcy discharges, and lower courts ruled that only the new cash was nondischargeable while the original obligations were discharged. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the full amount of the renewed or extended notes was nondischargeable. It reasoned that the 1960 Celler amendment to the federal bankruptcy act expanded the exception for debts obtained by false pretenses to cover extensions or renewals of credit procured through materially false written financial statements.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a grade school teacher seeking workmen's compensation for injuries from a car accident on her way home from school while transporting books and papers that her employer required her to take for lesson preparation and grading, as she had no time to do so at school. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the workmen's compensation appeal board's denial of benefits, which had relied on the Baas precedent excluding such injuries under the general going-and-coming rule. The court held that the dual-purpose doctrine applies when the trip combines personal travel with an employer-mandated duty, such as transporting school property, making the injury compensable under the workmen's compensation act. It overruled Baas and similar cases to the extent they failed to consider this doctrine and awarded benefits accordingly.

labor & employment

This case involved 65 plaintiffs, mostly married couples who bought homes from the defendants, suing for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations about property tax valuations and utility installation costs and responsibilities. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing improper joinder of parties under Michigan court rules, that the claims did not qualify as a class action, and that the fraud allegations lacked particularity. The trial court denied the motion, allowing joinder under GCR 1963, 206.1(2) on grounds that it would promote the convenient administration of justice, while ordering the plaintiffs to amend their complaint with more specific details about the misrepresentations. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the modern rules treat permissive joinder as a matter of trial convenience rather than requiring identical causes of action, that the original complaint provided sufficient information for the joinder decision, and that any potential prejudice or need for separate trials could be addressed after pretrial proceedings.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

The case concerned efforts by the Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the State Banking Commissioner, to block Michigan National Bank from acquiring the assets and assuming the liabilities of two Grand Ledge state banks, which would lead to their liquidation and the establishment of bank branches in Grand Ledge, allegedly creating a monopoly in the local banking market. The state banks separately challenged the commissioner's refusal to approve the transactions. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan financial institutions act does not exempt banking from the state's antimonopoly laws, either expressly or by implication, and that the proposed acquisition would be subject to scrutiny under those laws despite arguments of economic necessity and regulatory approval. The court reasoned that antimonopoly statutes reflect a policy against concentrating banking services to the extent shown here (roughly 92% market share), that prior case law and statutory construction do not support implied repeal or exemption, and that protections for bank stability do not override competition requirements absent specific legislative authorization.

business & regulatory

In Grocers Dairy Co. v. Department of Agriculture Director, the plaintiff dairy company sought a declaratory judgment that a Michigan statute (PA 1929, No 169, § 1, subd (q), as amended) was unconstitutional because it barred the sale of fluid milk in one-gallon containers while permitting sales in half-gallon or smaller sizes and in three-gallon or larger quantities. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling that upheld the statute and permanently enjoined the plaintiff from using non-prescribed containers. The court held that the absolute prohibition violated due process protections under the state and federal constitutions, as the record contained no evidence that one-gallon containers posed a health risk, caused consumer deception, or otherwise threatened public welfare in a manner different from allowed sizes, rendering the restriction arbitrary and lacking a reasonable relation to any legitimate regulatory purpose.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between landowners and a construction company (and its related corporation) over a 1956-1958 agreement for the sale of property intended for a shopping center. The contract included an option for the sellers to demand reconveyance if the land was not used for that purpose within three years, but the sellers later executed a quitclaim deed that removed the option from the public record to facilitate leasing. The sellers sued for breach and reconveyance after the buyers failed to develop the property or make required payments, while the buyers cross-claimed; the trial court ordered the buyers to pay taxes and the balance of the purchase price, begin construction with committed leases, or else reconvey the land. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that parol evidence was admissible to show the quitclaim deed was a sham never intended to bind the parties or extinguish the reconveyance right, as this fell under an exception to the parol evidence rule for proving a writing void rather than varying its terms, and that no attorney-client privilege barred the sellers' lawyer from testifying. The court remanded for entry of a new judgment allowing reasonable time for compliance.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death action brought by the administrator of a 10-year-old girl's estate against the seller of a mobile home trailer after the child was electrocuted due to a defect in the trailer's electrical system, specifically a screw piercing a neutral wire combined with an improperly polarized cord. The plaintiff alleged negligence and breach of implied warranty, and the jury awarded $25,000 in damages. The Michigan Supreme Court held that notice of the breach was not a prerequisite to suit under the relevant statute and that the trial court's jury instructions on damages under the wrongful death act were correct, thereby upholding the verdict. Dissenting opinions argued that the instructions improperly allowed recovery beyond pecuniary losses, such as for loss of companionship.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a tort suit by plaintiff Edward Ladner against co-employee Cora Vander Band and her husband John for injuries from a car accident in a General Motors employee parking lot. Plaintiff had just finished his night shift and was walking to his car when struck by Cora, who was arriving to start her shift. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed as to Cora, holding that the workers' compensation act barred the tort claim because both employees were on the employer's premises within a reasonable time before or after their shifts. It reversed as to John, ruling that the motor vehicle ownership liability statute applied to the accident on private property and was not limited to public highways.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In Koenig v. Lake Shore, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant corporation for reimbursement of a house purchase, alleging that its deceased president made false oral representations to induce him to relocate, with counts for fraud, assumpsit, and common counts; the defendant denied the claims and raised a statute of frauds defense. The pretrial issue was whether the defendant waived its right under the revised judicature act to object at trial to the plaintiff's testimony on matters equally within the deceased president's knowledge by questioning him in detail during a discovery deposition. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for an advance ruling on waiver, holding that pretrial deposition discovery under GCR 1963, 302 does not waive such objections, consistent with the Banaszkiewicz precedent and rules preserving the right to object at trial. The decision clarified that no protective order or waiver condition applies absent explicit court action.

procedure

The case concerned a worker laid off by his employer for a two-week compulsory vacation period under a union contract; he was ineligible for vacation pay due to insufficient seniority from a prior layoff and sought unemployment benefits from the Michigan Employment Security Commission. The hearing referee, commission, appeal board, and circuit court all denied the claim, finding the worker voluntarily unemployed under the contract. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the worker qualified as unemployed under the employment security act because the layoff period did not constitute voluntary unemployment or a waiver of benefits. The decision followed and applied the majority reasoning from the recent Vulcan Forging precedent, which had overruled earlier contrary authority.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiffs who owned a farm in Calhoun County, Michigan, sold a 19.5-acre strip of land to the State Highway Commissioner via warranty deed in 1958 for construction of Interstate 94, receiving $1,925 with no discussion or reservation of subsurface rights. After oil was discovered nearby, plaintiffs sued to quiet title, seeking to void the deed or limit it to surface rights only, invalidate the state's subsequent oil and gas lease to Marathon Oil Company, and retain mineral rights under the highway parcel. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill, holding that the deed conveyed absolute fee simple title to the commissioner without any reservation of oil and gas rights, as the land was acquired by voluntary purchase rather than condemnation. The court reasoned that the deed language was unambiguous, the highway commissioner had no need for minerals at acquisition, and later exclusion of mineral rights in other parcels had no bearing on this transaction; the conservation department's lease to Marathon was therefore valid within the estate conveyed. The decision noted that even in a condemnation context, excess takings could be permissible absent abuse of discretion, but purchase governed here.

property

The case involved a lawsuit by Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Company, acting as special administrator of a decedent's estate, against bar owners under Michigan's dram shop act for serving alcohol to the intoxicated decedent, who later died in a single-car accident caused by his own negligent speeding. The plaintiff initially filed under the wrongful death act and later sought to amend the pleadings to substitute parties and claims, but the trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the dram shop act creates a distinct cause of action available directly to injured family members rather than the estate's personal representative, that the original filing under the wrongful death act was improper, and that post-limitation amendments introducing a new cause of action were barred by the two-year statutory period. The court further noted that the new General Court Rules of 1963 did not apply because the dismissal order had been signed before their effective date.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a 1961 multi-vehicle accident on a Michigan highway in which plaintiff Houck struck the rear of defendant Snyder's unlit stopped truck and was then struck by defendant Drieberg's vehicle traveling behind him. The jury awarded damages to Houck and his insurer against Snyder but found no cause of action against Drieberg and Kraft Foods. The trial court granted Snyder judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denied plaintiffs' motion for a new trial as to the other defendants. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory presumption of negligence under the rear-end collision statute was improperly removed from the jury's consideration without clear contrary evidence, and that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding Drieberg's duty not to follow too closely and the assured-clear-distance rule. The court ordered entry of judgment on the jury's verdict against Snyder and a new trial as to Drieberg and Kraft Foods.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a minor passenger who sued the driver and vehicle owner for injuries sustained in a 1959 car accident, seeking recovery under Michigan's guest statute based on allegations of gross negligence. After a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the facts—including the unlicensed driver's high speeds, excited state after an incident with another vehicle, and prior experience with the car—could lead reasonable minds to differ on whether gross negligence occurred and proximately caused the injuries, so the issue was properly submitted to the jury. The court also rejected the defense that the plaintiff assumed the risk as a matter of law.

torts & liability