Court Opinion

ID: 9658460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:00:46.032167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:41.537770
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
(dissenting). It is my opinion that in the instant case plaintiff sufficiently has stated a cause of action for gross negligence and wilful, wanton, and intentional misconduct. Moreover, I would read Grasser v Fleming, 74 Mich App 338; 253 NW2d 757 (1977), in a broad manner and hold that the language therein contained, to the effect that defendant had agreed not to serve plaintiff, was not intended to be dispositive in that case. Further, I believe that the basic holding of Grasser, supra, is stated at page 350 thereof where the Court stated:
"We thus recognize a common law cause of action for serving a known drunk that other jurisdictions have also similarly found independent of the dramshop act. Not surprisingly there is a split of authority. We hold that plaintiff has stated a cause of action for gross negligence and wilful, wanton, and intentional misconduct independent of the dramshop act.
Accordingly, I would adopt the reasoning of Grasser and reverse and remand for trial.