Case Name: McCARRON v. UPPER PENINSULA HAULING ASSOCIATION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-08-30
Citations: 13 Mich. App. 168
Docket Number: Docket No. 2,471
Parties: McCARRON v. UPPER PENINSULA HAULING ASSOCIATION.
Judges: McIntyre, J., concurred with Quinn, J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 13
Pages: 168–173

Head Matter:
McCARRON v. UPPER PENINSULA HAULING ASSOCIATION.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Dismissal and Nonsuit — Directed Verdict — Court Rules.
A defendant’s motion for directed verdict in an action tried without a jury should properly be stated as a motion to dismiss, but it can be regarded by the eourt as such a motion even though it is stated in terms of a directed verdict (GCR 1963, 504.2).
2. Appeal and Error — Findings op Fact.
Finding by trial court that no negligence of defendant was shown by plaintiff held, not clearly erroneous on record presented and therefore affirmed (GCR 1963, 517.1).
Concurring Opinion.
Holbrook, J.
3. Negligence — Evidence—Burden of Persuasion — Duty op Dependant to Present Evidence.
No testimony or evidence need be introduced on behalf of defendants if the trier of facts finds that no negligence has been proved by plaintiff.
4. Same — Determination op Trier op Fact.
Determination by trial judge acting as trier of fact that plaintiff had not proved any negligence on the part of defendant was supported by the record.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 1126.
[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839 et seq.
[3] 38 Am Jur, Negligence § 285 et seq.
[4] 38 Am Jur, Negligence § 332 et seq.
Appeal from Chippewa, Baldwin (George S.), J.
Submitted Division 3 March 5, 1968, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 2,471.)
Decided August 30, 1968.
Complaint by Frederick G. McCarron and Janice McCarron against Upper Peninsula Hauling Association, Jacob Himmel and Laura Himmel, and Donald Nettleton and Deloras Nettleton for personal injuries sustained as a result of defendants’ negligence. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Platt é Platt (Jack Church, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Veum & Veum, for defendants Jacob and Laura Himmel.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
At the close of plaintiffs' proofs in this nonjury negligence action, the trial judge granted defendants' motions for directed verdict on the basis no negligence had been shown. Properly, these should have been motions to dismiss under GCR 1963, 504.2, and we so treat them.
Pursuant to the requirements of GCR 1963, 504.2, the trial judge made the findings required by GCR 1963, 517.1. A review of the trial record does not persuade us that such findings are clearly erroneous.
Affirmed, with costs to defendants.
McIntyre, J., concurred with Quinn, J.