Edward M. Sharpe

This case is a habeas corpus proceeding in which father Gordon Harmsen, after being restored to mental competency in 1955, sought return of two of his children who had been placed in the custody of others following probate court proceedings initiated by their mother in 1954. The probate court had taken jurisdiction over the children, placed them with the defendants, and later denied the father's petition for restoration of custody; the circuit court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the children returned to the father. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the writ should have been dismissed because the juvenile division of the probate court holds original and exclusive jurisdiction over such matters and no appealable order had been entered there. The court reasoned that the father's fitness and the children's welfare must be determined through proper probate court proceedings and appeals under the juvenile code, rather than by habeas corpus, and that the changed circumstances did not automatically terminate the probate court's authority.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit brought by an elderly schoolteacher who was struck by a car while crossing a street near a school that had just dismissed for the day. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant driver after a jury found for the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to continue watching for traffic. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury because the plaintiff was entitled to assume the driver would exercise special vigilance and control in the congested school-area conditions, including maintaining a proper lookout, reducing speed, and warning pedestrians. The court reasoned that the driver's heightened duties in the described circumstances meant the plaintiff's initial observation of clear traffic to one side did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law.

torts & liability

This case involved two separate lawsuits arising from a minor's injury by a train on the defendant railroad's tracks: one by the father seeking recovery of medical expenses and one by the mother as next friend seeking damages for the son's personal injuries. The trial court consolidated the actions for trial over the plaintiffs' later objections, instructed the jury to return separate verdicts if warranted, and the jury found no cause of action for either plaintiff. After the verdicts, the plaintiffs sought to extend the time to file motions for new trial, but the trial court denied the extension and the motions. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that consolidation was within the trial court's discretion under the statute because it promoted the convenient administration of justice and did not mislead the jury, and that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to extend the filing deadline for new-trial motions.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a claim by plaintiff Thomas F. Wall for breach of an employment contract with defendant Lunn Laminates, Inc., seeking unpaid commissions on a subcontract and later prime contract to manufacture plastic bodies for the Chevrolet Corvette. The contract, effective March 23, 1953, for an initial six-month period, provided for salary, expenses, and a bonus based on gross business written, capped at an annual rate of $15,000. After the contract term ended and plaintiff was discharged in October 1953, defendant obtained a prime contract from Chevrolet in December 1953 following negotiations that continued without plaintiff's involvement. The court reversed the jury's verdict for plaintiff and directed a verdict for defendant, reasoning that plaintiff's proofs failed to show he was the procuring cause of the contract and that the order was not "business written" under the terms of the employment agreement, which was no longer in effect.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved employees at Knight-Morley Corp. who walked off their shifts in a factory buffing room after a malfunctioning exhaust fan left the air dusty and unsafe; the employer treated their departure as a voluntary quit and denied unemployment benefits under the Michigan employment security act. An appeal board found the workers eligible for benefits, but the circuit court reversed, concluding they had left without good cause and used the ventilation issue as a pretext. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, holding that the hazardous working conditions provided good cause for leaving and did not constitute misconduct or a voluntary quit without justification under the statute. The court reasoned that the employees faced immediate health risks from the faulty system and that the specific labor-dispute provisions did not apply given the safety concerns.

labor & employment

This case concerned the authority of a city zoning board of appeals to grant a rehearing of its decision after the statutory five-day period for finality had expired. The board initially granted a variance allowing a building permit, but seven days later, at the city's request, it reheard the matter and denied the permit. The trial court quashed the rehearing order as void and reinstated the original variance. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither the enabling statute nor the local ordinance authorized rehearings, the decision became final after five days absent fraud or mistake, and zoning boards lack the inherent powers of courts to reconsider their rulings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory