Court Opinion

ID: 9656498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:49:22.784668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.762062
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring). On the record before us the judgment in plaintiff’s favor should be affirmed. Such result, however, does not require the application of the so-called res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Justice Voelker has incorporated in his opinion the views expressed by Mr. Justice Smith in his concurring opinion in Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Matthew Stores, Inc., 349 Mich 441, 452-456. In my opinion in that case I called attention to the position that this Court has taken, and consistently adhered to, for many years past.
Varying interpretations may be placed on the meaning of the term “res ipsa loquitur.” Text writers and courts are not in accord with reference to its meaning and application. This Court has adopted an interpretation consistent with the language of the doctrine as stated. No reason is apparent why we should depart therefrom, particularly in view of *185the fact that the determination of the cause now before us does not involve consideration of such issue. However, without discussing the matter further, I adhere to the views expressed in the majority opinion in the case above cited.
Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Carr, J.
Kavanagh, J., took no part in the decision of this case.