Court Opinion

ID: 9663196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:31:20.798278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:46.501777
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
*504For its reversal, the majority relies upon Beals v Walker, 98 Mich App 214; 296 NW2d 828 (1980). I also dissented in that case which similarly turned on the necessary quantum of plaintiffs proofs. In any event, leave has been granted in Beals v Walker, 411 Mich 900 (1981), by order of the Supreme Court dated May 8, 1981, and the issue is therefore, at least to some extent, clouded.
I believe it was a jury question whether the defendant’s breach of duty was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages and that the majority wrongfully has substituted its judgment for that of the jury on this issue. See Mills v A B Dick Co, 26 Mich App 164; 182 NW2d 79 (1970). I also believe that the jury properly could have concluded that defendant’s failure to adequately warn was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ failure to appreciate the extent of the danger, thus raising a jury-submissible issue. See Graham v Ryerson, 96 Mich App 480; 292 NW2d 704 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 858 (1980).
I would affirm.