Court Opinion

ID: 9697123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:06:44.171738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:29.487689
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(concurring). I concur in my colleagues’ well-written opinion. I write separately to highlight the tragic circumstances of this case.
In 1969, Norman and Beverly Lentz purchased in Michigan a small sailboat manufactured by defendant. They took the boat to their cottage in Ontario shortly thereafter. On June 28, 1969, the Lentzes and plaintiffs decedents took the boat out for a brief sail. Some ten hours later, the boat was found, upside down and full of water. The bodies of the four occupants were later recovered. Plaintiff instituted this action on July 15, 1971.
Plaintiffs action would have been timely if the accident had occurred in Michigan. The Legislature and courts of this state have determined that three years is the proper limitation period for wrongful death actions. Ruhle v Armstrong, 20 Mich App 573; 174 NW2d 292 (1969), aff'd, 384 Mich 709; 187 NW2d 223 (1971). See MCLA *69600.5805; MSA 27A.5805. However, Michigan has adopted a Uniform Statute of Limitations on Foreign Claims Act, MCLA 600.5861; MSA 27A.5861, which provides in part:
"(2) The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be either that prescribed by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever bars the claim.”
In the case at bar, the claim accrued where the deaths occurred — either in Ontario or Ohio. Parish v B F Goodrich Co, 395 Mich 271; 235 NW2d 570 (1975). Under either jurisdiction’s wrongful death limitation statute, plaintiffs claim was untimely. See RSO 1970, ch 164, § 5 (one year), ORC 2125.02 (two years).
It can be seen that the result of Michigan’s borrowing statute is that policy decisions of the legislatures and courts of other jurisdictions often control the time within which a Michigan plaintiff must institute suit. The policy decisions of the Michigan Legislature are disregarded if a Michigan plaintiffs claim happens to accrue outside of Michigan. Justice Levin's opinion for the Court in Parish v B F Goodrich Co, supra, at 283-284, recognized this paradox:
" 'The state [of purchase] has a concern for the control of its own commercial climate: for protecting those who come to purchase, and for exacting assurances of safety from those who do business in its markets.’ Note, Products Liability and the Choice of Law, 78 Harv L Rev 1452, 1464 (1965).
"Analogous reasoning would emphasize the state’s interest in protecting its residents against short statutes of limitations of infortuitous places where breach, injury or damage is suffered.
"The Legislature, however, on the recommendation of *70the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, has chosen an undifferentiating course barring Michigan residents, as well as nonresidents, from maintaining actions in Michigan courts that accrue in another state and which are time-barred in that state.” (Footnote omitted.)
Although the Legislature could have exempted Michigan residents from the often harsh application of the borrowing statute, it has not chosen to do so. See Parish v B F Goodrich Co, supra, at 283 and n 20; Long v Pettinato, 394 Mich 343, 349; 230 NW2d 550 (1975).
Thus, in the case at bar, the tragic deaths caused by what appears to be defendant’s clear negligence cannot be compensated.1 This seems an unconscionable result, but we are bound under the borrowing act to hold that plaintiffs claim was untimely. Thus, plaintiffs claim was untimely under MCLA 600.5861; MSA 27A.5861 and both the Ontario and Ohio limitation statutes.
This result is incredible in light of evidence of appellee’s wanton disregard for human life. The first boats of the type purchased by the Lentzes left defendant’s factory on February 18, 1969. On December 27, 1968, the boat’s designer had recommended improving the seal of the gunwale. His recommendations were ignored. On March 7, 1969, the boat’s designer informed appellee of three specific defects: 1) a defective gunwale seal; 2) boats were being built with only two cubic feet of flotation foam, only enough to float the boat without any passengers, rather than the ten cubic feet he had recommended; 3) the centerboard trunk was being manufactured with a hole in it. The designer testified that it was "inconceivable” that the boats would be shipped with those defects. On May 5, 1969, after the Lentzes purchased their *71boat, the designer discovered that the defects had not been corrected and again informed appellee of those defects. The presence of these three defects in the Lentzes’ boat were confirmed by appellant’s experts, who testified that the result of the hole in the centerboard and improper gunwale seal was that water was allowed into the shell of the boat, further reducing its buoyancy.
Appellee never attempted to recall the defective boats or warn dealers or purchasers of those defects.
Appellee’s action in this case was reprehensible. On the basis of the testimony presented, appellee knowingly sold deadly instrumentalities to the public without any warning. Such action may amount to criminal irresponsibility. It is solely on the basis of the statute of limitations that I concur in holding that appellee cannot be held financially responsible for its irresponsible conduct; I do so with great misgivings.

 A jury awarded plaintiff $235,000 after which the trial judge granted defendant’s JNOV motion.