Court Opinion

ID: 9733941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:21:01.71875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.654115
License: Public Domain

J. T. Kallman, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority. This Court has ruled that a litigant is entitled to a trial by jury in a suit for damages under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. King v General Motors Corp, 136 Mich App 301, 308; 356 NW2d 626 (1984). Therefore, in order to preserve this right, as the majority states, the proper procedure is to hold trial before a jury and then have a court determination of the equitable claims and a jury determination of the legal claim for damages. The plaintiffs in the present case do not challenge the trial court’s findings on their equitable claims. Therefore, the trial court’s decision on plaintiffs’ claim for equitable relief stands. However, since the plaintiffs were denied a jury determination of their claim for damages, I agree with the majority that this case must be remanded for a new trial on plaintiffs’ claim for damages.
In a case such as this, there is great potential for confusion and contradictory findings. The judge, in the exercise of his equity jurisdiction, may find that there is a civil rights violation, while the jury, in the exercise of its factfinding *482function on legal claims, may find that there is no violation, or vice-versa. While it appears to defy logic and common sense, I agree with the majority’s interpretation of Justice Black’s opinion in Abner Wolf Inc v Walch, 385 Mich 253; 188 NW2d 544 (1971), and the commentary in 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), 1984 pocket part, p 146. It would appear that this is a problem which should be addressed by the Michigan Legislature.