Court Opinion

ID: 9678788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:32:31.072144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:07.892969
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(concurring in result). Venue was changed from Wayne County to Oakland County on the basis that the trial court believed plaintiffs claim arose wholly in Oakland County. The majority reverse, holding that the cause of action arose wholly in Wayne County.
I concur in the analysis of the majority, except I believe that where a tort is based on advice given on the telephone, venue may be found in either the locus of the caller or the locus of the receiver. This means that in this case, venue was proper in *496either Wayne County, where the parent of the deceased child placed the call, or Oakland County, where the doctor on the telephone made the allegedly negligent diagnosis. Under these circumstances, I would believe that plaintiffs action was properly commenced in Wayne County, as venue had been properly laid in that county.
Thus, I would conclude that the action of the Wayne Circuit Court in switching venue to Oakland County was erroneous. Consequently, I concur in the result reached by the majority, namely, that the order changing venue should be vacated and the cause remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings, but for a different reason than that indicated by the majority.