Court Opinion

ID: 9693003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:15:23.794515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:01:08.815781
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result but I am only willing to apply the gross negligence *746analysis of this opinion to cases arising under the recreational use act for the reasons stated in Burnett v City of Adrian, 414 Mich 448, 455; 326 NW2d 810 (1982). In footnote 23 of that case Justice Moody indicated that the Supreme Court was not willing to treat the concept of gross negligence as being without an independent meaning under the recreational use statute. The Supreme Court stated that as a minimum gross negligence under the recreational use act incorporated the doctrine of last clear chance. Whether the term "gross negligence” is synonymous with "willful and wanton misconduct” in other contexts is an issue that need not be decided in this case. For purposes of this decision it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff has not established or pleaded anything other than ordinary negligence.