Court Opinion

ID: 9669389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:54:39.992039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:54.476498
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). I concur in Mr. Justice Adams’ result because I agree with Circuit Judge Zick, as he is quoted by Mr. Justice Kelly in Reisig v. Klusendorf, 375 Mich 519, 522 “That the Wycko Case  overruled all of the prior cases and set up an entirely new standard for the determination of pecuniary loss in death cases” in order to include therein an element of recovery which had not previously been recognized in this State. The decision in that case, now part of our jurisprudence, has been presumptively known to the legislature at the very least since 1960.
The sword of presumptive legislative notice of judicial decisions cuts both ways. If it is a valid concept in the maintenance of the status quo, as this Court held for many years when change was advocated, it must be equally valid when change becomes a judicial fait accompli. See generally, 50 Am Jur, Statutes, § 326, p 318; 21 CJS, Courts, § 214, pp 388-390 and Twork v. Munising Paper Co., 275 Mich 174; In re Clayton Estate, 343 Mich 101; Consumers Power Co., v. County of Muskegon, 346 Mich 243; Sheppard v. Michigan National Bank, 348 Mich 577.
*457If the legislature had found Wycho inconsonant with legislative intent, it has had ample opportunity to amend the act to declare explicitly and precisely what elements of damage are included or excluded from “pecuniary loss.”
I do not agree that interest should be allowed on the judgment from the date of death. Automobile negligence cases should be able to be defended both as to liability and amount of damage without the peril of interest being added to a plaintiff’s judgment.