Court Opinion

ID: 9702152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:56:45.790761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:34.086925
License: Public Domain

Archer, J.
I respectfully dissent.
I would not overrule Romeo v Van Otterloo, 117 Mich App 333; 323 NW2d 693 (1982), because the facts in this case are sufficiently different to clearly distinguish the two cases.
Romeo involves a nondramshop defendant and therefore did not consider the factual situation presented in this case. Romeo should not be overruled, and the majority errs in doing so.
Finally, even under the majority’s analysis, the case should be remanded to the trial court to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege that the *202employer knew or should have known that its employee could not be trusted with the responsibility his employer gave him.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Griffin, J., took no part in the decision of this case.