Court Opinion

ID: 9702561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:16:52.535563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:38.847410
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring in affirmance). When both parties moved unconditionally (under the practice then in effect*) for a directed verdict in favor of each respectively, followed by discharge of the jury, *587the status of the case changed abruptly from that of a jury trial to that of a nonjury trial. Judge Holland thereupon became the weigher and finder of facts as well as the applier of applicable law. Hence, there being in any view of the case evidence sufficient to support Judge Holland’s finding that defendant was not actionably negligent, his judgment was and is free from error as assigned.
The rule to which I refer arose with definite clarity when Culligan v. Alpern, 160 Mich 241, and Germain v. Loud, 189 Mich 38, were handed down. The rule, quoted from the Germain Case at 44:
“While, perhaps, different minds might be differently affected by the testimony which is substantially undisputed — different minds might draw different inferences — counsel for both parties requested the court to decide the controlling question, and it was not error for the court to do so. Culligan v. Alpern, 160 Mich 241. Whether we'.'say it was decided as a question of law or one of fact is not very material.”
I concur in affirmance.
Kavanagh, C. J., and Souris, J., concurred with Black, J.
Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 See GCR 1963, 515.1, for change of the practice considered in this opinion.