Court Opinion

ID: 9710396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:08:51.821375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:56.500839
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P.J.
(concurring in part and dis-*155seating in part). I respectfully dissent from the non sequitur of the majority in No. 88268 by which application of Buxton v Alexander, 69 Mich App 507; 245 NW2d 111 (1976), through Putney v Haskins, 414 Mich 181; 324 NW2d 729 (1982), precludes application of Salim v LaGuire, 138 Mich App 334; 361 NW2d 9 (1984), and O’Dowd v General Motors Corp, 419 Mich 597; 358 NW2d 553 (1984). Putney requires us to uphold the dram-shop judgment against Stevens. I see no inequity in doing so therefore observe no reason to balance-out Putney’s effect by denying application of Salim and O’Dowd. Moreover, I see nothing in the jury verdict which would warrant the majority’s decision to withhold application of Salim and O’Dowd. The injury in this case was indivisible and could not have occurred without the negligence of both defendants. Under these circumstances, joint and several liability is intended to fully compensate the victim, not fairly tax the tortfeasor. See generally, 65 CJS, Negligence, § 102, pp 1117-1127. I would apply joint and several liability to the judgment.