Theodore Souris

This case involves a wrongful death action brought by the administratrix of John C. Jordan's estate against C. A. Roberts Company, alleging that Jordan was an independent contractor fatally injured while working for the defendant. The defendant sought accelerated judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Michigan workmen's compensation act because Jordan's widow had previously redeemed a compensation claim based on his status as an employee. On rehearing, the court affirmed the accelerated judgment for the defendant, holding that the workmen's compensation appeal board's unappealed determination that Jordan was an employee was binding and precluded relitigation of his status in this separate proceeding by the estate. The majority reasoned that once the board found employee status, the statutory bar applied regardless of the different parties involved, and there was no remaining factual dispute to resolve at trial.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Kwaiser v. Peters, a civil action against a tavern owner, the plaintiff moved for a new trial after a defense verdict, claiming a juror improperly associated with the defendant and counsel right after the verdict and had given false answers on the required juror personal history questionnaire about prior traffic convictions. The trial court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court also affirmed. The court held that a new trial is not warranted absent affirmative proof of prejudice from the post-verdict contact or proof that the false questionnaire answers caused a miscarriage of justice or prevented an impartial jury, applying precedents requiring such a showing even in criminal cases and for post-verdict conduct in civil cases.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved a dispute between Union Township and the City of Mount Pleasant over whether the city needed the township's permission to construct a second water pipeline along a county road right-of-way within the township. The Michigan Supreme Court held that Article 7, Section 29 of the state constitution requires the consent of the township, in addition to the county, for a public utility to use township highways or public places. The court reasoned that while the McNitt Act transferred road maintenance responsibilities to counties, it did not eliminate the township's regulatory authority over the use of its roads by utilities, as supported by pre-existing statutes requiring township consent.

business & regulatoryproperty

In People v. Younger, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder after killing his wife upon unexpectedly finding her with male company late at night, and he appealed on grounds that he should have been permitted to introduce more evidence of her prior infidelity to support a provocation defense reducing the charge to manslaughter, along with related jury instructions. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's own actions—such as greeting the guests, going to the basement to retrieve and load a rifle, directing his wife to pray on her knees for several minutes, and then shooting her multiple times—demonstrated deliberation rather than a heat-of-passion killing, so no manslaughter instruction was warranted. The court also rejected claims of error regarding prolonged jury deliberations and the prosecutor's closing arguments because no objections were made at trial, though it suggested better practices for future cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In this wrongful death case, the plaintiff, as special administratrix of the estate of Clifford Ray Dutton, sued Wayne County for negligence after Dutton died when his car drove off the end of a county road into an obstacle on private property. The complaint alleged the county failed to post warning signs or erect a barricade at the road's end, despite knowing of the hazard. The trial court granted the county's motion for summary judgment for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the county had no statutory duty to erect signs under its discretionary authority. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pleaded claims of failure to consider or install traffic control devices and a barricade were legally sufficient to survive dismissal because they could breach the county's duty under CLS 1961, § 224.21 to keep roads reasonably safe and convenient for travel, and nonexercise of discretion is not automatically immune from review.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice action brought by a patient against an osteopath for negligently cutting her ureter during surgery to remove an ovary, followed by complications from the repair. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant after excluding certain expert testimony from an allopathic physician and limiting cross-examination of an assisting osteopath; the Court of Appeals reversed for a new trial on the cross-examination issue. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, ruling that the plaintiff had made a sufficient showing to cross-examine the assisting physician under the relevant statute and that the trial court had improperly restricted that examination, while also addressing the standards for admitting opinion testimony from physicians of different medical schools when procedures overlap.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare