Court Opinion

ID: 9740283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:31:43.074533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.271583
License: Public Domain

Danhof, P. J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff Carol Samson brought this action seeking to recover damages for injuries inflicted on her by defendant Butzin. A jury found for the plaintiffs and defendant Saginaw Professional Building, Inc., has appealed. On appeal the defendant’s main contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict. I agree, and limit my discussion to this issue and one other.
Mrs. Samson was employed as a secretary to an attorney who maintained offices on the fifth floor of the Saginaw Professional Building. On March 30, 1966, at about 10 a.m., she left her office to go to the coffee shop on the first floor. She entered the elevator and Donald Butzin also got on. When the elevator started down, Butzin pushed the emergency stop button, produced a knife, and demanded money. After taking Mrs. Samson’s wallet Butzin began stabbing her with the knife. After stabbing her several times Butzin cut himself. He apparently became concerned because of the cut and restarted the elevator. When the elevator reached the ground floor, Butzin ran away.
Defendant Butzin had engaged in conduct of this *672type on a previous occasion. In January of 1963 he had entered a woman’s home, attempted to tie her up, and slashed her head and hand with a knife. After this Butzin was sent to a juvenile home for a few months and then released to his parents. In July of 1963 he was committed to the Traverse City State Hospital. After a year at the hospital he was released on convalescent leave, but was not permanently discharged. At the time of the incident he was an outpatient of the Saginaw Valley Consultation Center, an agency created by the state to provide outpatient care for released mental patients. The Consultation Center was located on the fourth floor of the Saginaw Professional Building.
The plaintiffs’ claim against the corporation is based on the general rule of law that one who knows or should know of a person’s vicious propensities and places that person in a position where he can injure a third party will be liable to the third party if an injury occurs. I cannot quarrel with the correctness of this statement, nor would I dispute the proposition that under certain circumstances a landlord could be held liable for damages caused to one tenant by the activities of another tenant. However, I do not believe the rule applies to the facts of this case. It cannot be said that the corporate defendant knew, or should have known, of Butzin’s vicious propensities.
The plaintiffs stress the fact that the corporation made no inquiries of the Consultation Center regarding whether or not any of the center’s patients could be regarded as dangerous. To evaluate the importance of this contention we must examine what the result of such inquiries would have been. It is clear from the record that the most that the corporation would have received was the infor*673mation that the center had patients with a prior history of assaults. Any information regarding individuals is certainly privileged and would have been withheld. Counterbalancing this knowledge is the fact, already known to the corporation, that the State of Michigan had determined that it was safe to release the patients into society. The trained professionals, who are empowered by the law of this state to make such a determination, had determined that it was safe to place defendant Butzin into society. To require the defendant corporation to disregard this determination is to require it to disregard the assurances of the State of Michigan and to require laymen to second-guess experts. Furthermore, the state was maintaining supervision over the patients and had the power to recommit them if they manifested antisocial propensities. Does not the public have the right to rely on the state to do its duty?
As an additional ground I do not believe that it is fair to say that the defendant corporation placed Butzin in a position where he could injure others. Granting that the location of the clinic in the building made it more likely that the plaintiff would come in contact with a mental patient, I do not think that the doctrine should be carried to this extent. The possible ramifications of finding liability in this case are tremendous. It is not only state-operated clinics that attract individuals like defendant Butzin. Consider the case of a private psychiatrist, an attorney, or a bail bondsman. Is it the policy of this state to make landlords reluctant to rent to these people?
Consider also the fact that psychiatrists, attorneys, and bail bondsmen do not share in the state’s immunity from suit. If the landlord is liable it seems an a fortiori proposition that the tenant *674would be liable. After all, the tenant is in a far better position to know of his patients’, clients’, or customers’ propensities for viciousness. Is it the policy of this state to encourage psychiatrists to treat only those patients that he is absolutely sure are nonviolent? In this age of a greatly expanded right to counsel, is it the policy of this state to encourage attorneys not to represent criminal defendants? Is it the policy of this state to make it more difficult for a criminal defendant to use the services of a bail bondsman?
What the final results of a doctrine imposing liability would be, I cannot say. However, it is clear that they may be both far-reaching and unfortunate. If such widespread liability is to be imposed surely it should be imposed by the Legislature, a body which possesses the tools necessary for a full investigation of the problems.
The cases relied on by the plaintiffs are distinguishable. Hersh v Kentfield Builders, Inc, 385 Mich 410 (1971), was an action against an employer for damages caused by his employee to the plaintiff on defendant’s premises. In Hersh the Supreme Court relied on Bradley v Stevens, 329 Mich 556 (1951). Bradley was also a case involving an employer’s liability. The only other authority cited was an ALR annotation dealing with an employer’s liability for negligence in hiring. The employer-employee cases stand on a somewhat different footing than does the case at bar. The employer deals directly with his employee and thus is better able to evaluate him. In none of the cases cited by the plaintiffs had there been a determination that the employee was safe made by someone on whom the defendant was entitled to rely. In the case of an employer-employee relationship, the employer has placed his stamp of ap*675proval on the employee and in a sense vouched for his character. The persons dealing with the employer have the right to rely on him not to endanger their persons or property by negligently selecting his employees. The employer not only places the active tortfeasor in a position to do wrong, he retains the right to control his actions.
In Hersh the assailant had been convicted of a crime and presumably imprisoned. The opinion in that case does not show whether or not he had been discharged after completion of his sentence or paroled. However, it is clear that the employer did not rely on any determination made by the Parole Board. Perhaps if the defendant had relied on a determination of the Parole Board the Court would have viewed the case differently. In any event, a parole is not as strong an indication that the individual is fit to live in society as is a discharge or conditional release from a mental institution. A person imprisoned for a crime will be entitled to release after a given time has elapsed, regardless of whether or not he is a safe risk. A release on parole represents not so much a determination that the parolee is safe as it does a determination that he is less likely to become a recidivist if he is released now than if he is released later.
Another case relied on by the plaintiffs is Johnston v Harris, 387 Mich 569 (1972). This case emphasizes the point that when a person is injured by an intentional tort, a person whose conduct gave the tortfeasor his opportunity is not liable unless it was reasonably foreseeable that the intentional tort would occur. I do not believe that when one rents space to a clinic treating mental patients it is reasonably foreseeable that one of them will assault a third party on the premises. *676Granted that putting a mental clinic in a building will increase the amount of contact between the tenants of the building and mental patients, and thus increase the mathematical possibility of one of them being assaulted, but there are some risks that we must all run. Renting space to a physician is likely to increase the number of persons on the premises who have communicable diseases. Would the doctor and the landlord be held liable to the other tenants who get sick? Renting to a merchant who keeps large amounts of money or other valuables on hand will increase the possibility of a robbery. Would the landlord and the proprietor of the store be liable to a tenant who was injured in a holdup? Renting to people such as these is not the same as renting to Murder, Inc. or the Hell’s Angels.
Reasonable foreseeability is simply what is reasonable to foresee. There is no requirement that one indulge in speculation as to the possible consequences of his acts. If this were so no one would be able to do anything. All sorts of absolutely amazing things may occur as a result of any given act. The question is not is it possible that something may happen. The question is, is there any reasonable likelihood that it will occur. The defendant corporation had no reason to expect that the plaintiff would be assaulted. It knew only that it was increasing the contact between persons receiving mental treatment and the others normally in the building. It is surely stretching things a bit to say that the defendant corporation should have anticipated that one of the persons would assault someone in the building. To require such foresight is to require the possession of the gift of prophecy.
Johnston was a case where the landlord knew, or should have known, that the building was loca*677ted in a high crime area. The negligence consisted of failing to provide a lock for the door and proper lighting for the hallway. The Court regarded this as an open invitation to criminals. Conditions similar to these are not present in this case.
Society must be allowed to carry out its necessary functions. If in the course of events an innocent party is injured without the fault of another, and if it is determined that the burden of loss should be shifted, it is society in general that should bear the loss. The fact that the Legislature has not seen fit to move in this direction does not justify a court placing liability on persons who could not reasonably foresee the injury. One bad rule of law does not justify another.
One further case requires some discussion. That case is May v Goulding, 365 Mich 143 (1961). In May a dissent by Justice Souris, but written by former Justice Talbot Smith before he left the Court, urged many of the considerations that we have urged in this opinion. The dissent was ignored by the majority of the Court. However, May is certainly distinguishable on its facts. In May the claimed negligence consisted of allowing a 15-year-old boy, who was on leave from a mental institution, to make use of a firearm while unsupervised. In May it was the boy’s parents who were held liable, the persons who were in a position to know of his instability and had a duty to control him. Allowing a 15-year-old boy to make use of a firearm while unsupervised would often present a fact question on negligence even in the absence of a serious mental problem. Therefore, I do not find May to be controlling.
I also disagree with the majority on the question of the admissibility of the testimony of the prior assault victim and the probate records. The major*678ity concedes that this information had not been available to the defendant corporation. Before such evidence is received I would think that, as a bare minimum, a foundation should be laid by a showing that the corporation could have obtained the information that a patient with such a history existed. In the absence of such a showing the evidence is irrelevant. This information, which the corporation could not obtain, can have no bearing on the reasonableness of its actions. I believe that the prejudicial effect of this evidence is so obvious that further comment is not required.
I would reverse and remand with instructions to enter a judgment for the defendant, Saginaw Professional Building, Inc.