Case ID: mich_480/html/1202-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Weaver, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rehearings Denied September 28, 2007:
    
    Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Company.
   Reported at 479 Mich 378.

Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ. We would grant rehearing.

Weaver, J.

(dissenting). I dissent from the majority of four’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ motion for a rehearing and repeat the concluding paragraph of my dissent from the majority’s opinion in this case, issued July 25, 2007:

Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that with the enactment of the Revised Judicature Act, the Legislature sought to abrogate the discovery rule, I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision applying the common-law discovery rule and tolling the period of limitations where plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the elements of a wrongful death cause of action within the limitations period. [Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378, 407 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting).]

Clearly, the majority of four’s decision in this case reaches an absurd and unjust result, and lacks common sense.