Court Opinion

ID: 9704730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:44:26.262449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:04.617773
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. I do not follow the logic of the majority decision. The right to recover for injuries, including economic losses, was a common law right before the no-fault act was adopted. A common law right is not lost absent clear legislative mandate. That is not the case here. If a pedestrian is struck by an automobile and can recover no-fault benefits from the driver, then certainly a motorist should have the same right. The majority is writing into the statute something that is simply not there. Courts should abstain from abstract reasoning that has the illogical result achieved here.
I would affirm the court of appeals in both cases.