Court Opinion

ID: 9689343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:28:28.91905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.131801
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. While I am in agreement with the majority’s conclusions regarding loss of consortium, it is my belief that the record does not give rise to any facts that would lead a finder of fact to the conclusion that the plaintiff husband was anything but a trespasser at the time of the injury.
It may have been his intention to purchase an admission ticket and play golf at a later time. The fact remains that he did not enter the premises through the normal point of entry. Nor did he make his presence known to any official of the golf club. Mr. Danaher should not be placed in the same category as children climbing over a fence to visit an attractive nuisance, such as a fishpond on a golf course. He was well aware of the purpose of the facility and knew that he was taking a risk which might injure him.
Preston v Sleziak, 383 Mich 442; 175 NW2d 759 (1970), relied on by the majority, seems, instead, to preclude plaintiff from being a licensee on the premises. That case sets forth the requirement that the licensee have no knowledge of the condition and risk involved. Plaintiff clearly does not fit that mold. He had played golf at defendants’ course several times and knew of the dangers inherent at the pond.
I would, therefore, hold that plaintiff husband was a trespasser and reverse and remand for a new trial.