Court Opinion

ID: 9741911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:04:03.038374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.125074
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I join in the majority opinion for the reasons expressed in Justice Archer’s concurrence, but only to the extent that the adoption of the fireman’s rule in Michigan applies to owners and occupiers of the premises in question. I dissent *381from the majority’s extension of the fireman’s rule to defendants, such as Detroit Edison in Kreski v Modern Wholesale, who are not owners or occupiers of the premises. The adoption of the rule is primarily based on the concern that it is unreasonable to require landowners or occupiers to prepare their premises for the arrival of fire fighters and police officers, whose need and appearance is usually unpredictable. This and other policy considerations which justify protecting landowners and occupiers from liability are absent when considering independent negligent causes. I would thus affirm the trial court’s denial of Detroit Edison’s motion for summary judgment in Kreski, supra.