Court Opinion

ID: 9572891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:45:25.612776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:34.016251
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
(dissenting). This is a difficult case for the dissenter to analyze and comprehend. It is perhaps more difficult for the dissenter inasmuch as I agree with the dissent in Dale v Whiteman, 388 Mich 698; 202 NW2d 797 (1972).
Recognizing the fact that I am bound to follow the majority opinion in Dale, I find it difficult to distinguish the rationale utilized in the majority opinion with that utilized in the majority opinion in the instant case.
If we are going to circumvent the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation statute, MCLA 413.15; MSA 17.189, as was permitted in Dale, then it seems to me that it should be utilized in the instant case. A discussion of the facts in Dale and in the instant case and a discussion of the distinction between an act of active or passive negligence would only muddy the waters, and these topics have been covered in the majority opinion.
Unless and until the Michigan Supreme Court retreats from its position in Dale, I would affirm the trial court.