Court Opinion

ID: 9848157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:13:45.073982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:04.246758
License: Public Domain

Mackenzie, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that the limitations period applicable to this product liability case is three years under MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7) as it existed prior to amendment in 1978.1 also agree that, with respect to plaintiffs’ negligence theory, the applicable statute governing when plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued is MCL 600.5827; MSA 27A.5827. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the discovery rule of accrual applies to plaintiffs’ negligence theory. I would affirm the trial court.
In Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equipment Repair & *36Service Co, 388 Mich 146; 200 NW2d 70 (1972), which, like the present case, involved a products liability claim for personal injuries based on a negligence theory, the Court interpreted MCL 600.5827; MSA 27A.5827 as providing that a cause of action accrues not when the negligent act occurs but, rather, when the following four elements have occurred:
"(1) The existence of a legal duty by defendant toward plaintiff.
"(2) The breach of such duty.
"(3) A proximate causal relationship between the breach of such duty and an injury to the plaintiff.
"(4) The plaintiff must have suffered damages.” Connelly, supra, p 150.
Thus, accrual occurs when the injury or damage is suffered; the Court in Connelly in no way indicated that a discovery rule must also be applied.
I recognize that our Supreme Court has applied the discovery rule in the contexts of negligent misrepresentation, Williams v Polgar, 391 Mich 6; 215 NW2d 149 (1974), and medical malpractice, Dyke v Richard, 390 Mich 739; 213 NW2d 185 (1973); Johnson v Caldwell, 371 Mich 368; 123 NW2d 785 (1963). The Supreme Court has also applied the discovery rule in products liability cases based on a breach of warranty theory under MCL 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833, which expressly provides that an action based on breach of warranty accrues when the breach is discovered or reasonably should be discovered. Southgate Community School Dist v West Side Construction Co, 399 Mich 72, 82; 247 NW2d 884 (1976); Parish v B F Goodrich Co, 395 Mich 271, 282; 235 NW2d 570 (1975). Also, this Court has applied the discovery rule in a case involving property damage due *37to negligent workmanship. Bluemlein v Szepanski, 101 Mich App 184; 300 NW2d 493 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 995 (1981). However, none of the Michigan cases cited by the majority stand for the proposition that a discovery rule of accrual applies to a products liability action for personal injuries based on a negligence theory.
Nor do I agree with the majority’s interpretation of Sedlak v Ford Motor Co, 64 Mich App 61; 235 NW2d 63 (1975), Reiterman v Westinghouse, Inc, 106 Mich App 698; 308 NW2d 612 (1981), and Stoneman v Collier, 94 Mich App 187; 288 NW2d 405 (1979), as decisions implicitly adopting the discovery rule for purposes of products liability cases based on a negligence theory.
Until the Legislature or our Supreme Court clearly indicates that the discovery rule of accrual is to be applied in products liability actions for personal injuries based on a negligence theory, I decline to do so. Given the present state of the law, I believe Connelly, supra, is the controlling case, and under it plaintiffs’ cause of action based on their negligence theory accrued at the time Wallace Bonney’s injuries occurred, not when plaintiffs discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged negligence of defendant. In addition, I reject plaintiffs’ argument that due process requires application of the discovery rule of accrual. See O’Brien v Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich 1; 299 NW2d 336 (1980), aff'g Oole v Oosting, 82 Mich App 291; 266 NW2d 795 (1978).