Court Opinion

ID: 9658835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:17:21.609057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:00.278051
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). Mr. Justice Carr’s quotation from and reliance on Arnold v. Krug, 279 Mich 702, has no right or place in this suit to recover damages resulting from an automotive collision which occurred in Indiana. What is more, the worth of Arnold v. Krug as Michigan precedent has been diluted if not drained entirely from our reports. See opinion of Mr. Justice Smith in Krause v. Ryan, 344 Mich 428, 435-438 (followed in Hicks v. Gillespie, 346 Mich 593, 599; Ware v. Nelson, 351 Mich 390, 396; Samyn v. Bublitz, 352 Mich 613, 618; McKinney v. Yelavich, 352 Mich 687, 696).
Aside from the above, I concur in the reasoning, and the decision to affirm, of our Brother.
Smith, Edwards, Voelker, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with Black, J.