Court Opinion

ID: 9706002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:29:30.830221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:38.127328
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I am forced to dissent from a portion of my brother Beasley’s majority opinion in' this case for the same basic reasons expressed in McNeal v Henry, 82 Mich App 88; 266 NW2d 469 (1978). Though I agree that defendants owed plaintiff a duty of reasonable care due to plaintiffs status as a business invitee, I would conceive the legal definition of that duty, which is a matter for the court to decide, in terms which do not extend to the kind of unforeseeable conduct exhibited by plaintiffs assailant. Defendants’ duty will not legally extend to this kind of harm. Very simply then, I do not believe that an unprovoked attack by a stranger with a revolver is the kind of harm foreseeably related to defendants’ duty to protect their patrons. See Holloway v Martin Oil Service, Inc, 79 Mich App 475; 262 NW2d 858 (1977).
Consequently, I would find that, as a matter of law, defendants could not be held responsible for the type of unforeseeable harm consequent to this unprovoked attack. The court was thus in error by denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict since that motion properly requested the trial court to decide a legal question, which in my opinion should have been resolved by directing a verdict for defendants. Therefore, I would reverse the court below.