Court Opinion

ID: 9659711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:53:10.403843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.973879
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff Carroll E. Jones was injured on March 7, 1966. Plaintiffs’ suit was filed December 23, 1966. The case was tried before the court and a jury in October, 1968. At the conclusion of all the evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict of no cause for action. The court granted the motion. Motion for new trial, *178filed on November 7, 1968, was denied on December 9,1968.
The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. A panel of that Court filed its decision on April 27, 1970. (23 Mich App 338.) The opinion of the Court of Appeals stated (p 340): "We know of no Michigan case which has extended warranty of fitness into this area, and we choose not to so extend it at this time. ” (Emphasis added.) The Court further held that (p 342): " * * * plaintiffs were entitled to go to the jury on the issue of defendants’ negligence.” The case was remanded for a new trial "on the theory of negligence.”
The case was again tried on October 19, 1970. The jury returned a verdict of no cause for action. On January 21, 1971, Judge Glennie denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. He stated:
"The Court refused to submit to the jury the theory of implied warranty of fitness, and it did so on the theory that the Court was estopped and precluded from submitting this claim in view of the decision of Jones v Keetch, 23 Mich App 338.”
Pursuant to GCR 1963, 852, application was made for leave to appeal directly to this Court. Defendants opposed the application on the ground that following the Court of Appeals’ decision in April 1970, the plaintiffs should have made application for leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to GCR 1963, 853. Order granting leave to appeal was entered by this Court on May 7, 1971. (384 Mich 837.) The case was argued during the May 1972 term of this Court.
From the commencement of this case on December 23, 1966 to the present time, it has gone through two trials and various other court proceedings. To the layman the approximately five *179and one-half years consumed to date may well seem appalling. Yet the fact of the matter is that this case has moved through the courts with unusual speed due to the efforts of diligent counsel on both sides, and the fact that the case was instituted in one of the smallest counties of this state with a circuit court that does not have a clogged docket and a backlog of cases.1 Had the case been instituted in a populous county, the time taken for the proceedings to date could easily have been double.
While I agree with Justice T. G. Kavanagh as to the question of whether plaintiffs’ appeal was timely made, I would predicate decision not only on GCR 1963, 853.2(3), but on the further proposition that plaintiffs’ election to accept the April 27, 1970 decision of the Court of Appeals and return to the trial court for a new trial on the theory of negligence has estopped the plaintiffs from raising the issue of implied warranty of fitness at this time.
The decision of the Court of Appeals — one-half in favor of plaintiffs and one-half in favor of defendants — confronted plaintiffs with a choice. Plaintiffs could have accepted the decision of that Court and could have taken their chances on a new trial based on the theory of negligence2 or they could have applied to this Court for leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals. If this Court had denied such an application, the issue of implied warranty would have been settled and, absent any new error upon retrial, the second *180trial would have ended the case. On the other hand, had this Court granted the application, the issue of implied warranty would have been decided by this Court prior to a second trial. Once again, upon remand from this Court to the trial court, any theory or theories upon which plaintiffs could maintain their action would have been settled. Plaintiffs elected to accept the decision of the Court of Appeals and return to the trial court for a new trial.
Plaintiffs’ failure to apply to this Court for leave to appeal from the April 27, 1970 decision of the Court of Appeals, as stated by Justice T. G. Kavanagh, rendered the decision of the Court of Appeals, as to the question of breach of implied warranty, the law of the case.
If the question of the law governing breach of implied warranty as to rental property was properly before us, I would agree with Justice Black. Since it is not, I vote to affirm the trial court.
Costs to defendants.
T. E. Brennan, J., concurred with Adams, J.

 Montmorency County has a 1970 population of 5,247 persons and a Bar presently composed of three attorneys.

 Even though plaintiffs on the second trial asked the court to submit to the jury the theory of implied warranty of fitness, they knew that this theory was no longer in the case and that any conscientious trial judge would do exactly what Judge Glennie did— follow the law as determined by the appellate court.