Court Opinion

ID: 9669368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:54:08.714098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:55.970366
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring in result). I concur with the result reached by the eminent Chief Justice but I confine my concurrence to the applicability of the rule of Simonelli v. Cassidy, 343 Mich 657, 661, *391which I believe here controls the dispositive question. I quote therefrom:
“ ‘In my opinion the amendment constitutes a new cause of action. It allows Eleuterio Simonelli as an individual representing one cause of action to get out of court and Mr. Simonelli as administrator representing an entirely different cause of action to get into court. This is not permissible. (See Walker v. Lansing & Suburban Traction Company, 144 Mich 685; and Cugell v. Sani-Wash Laundry Company, 280 Mich 286.)’ ”
The alternative is to overrule Simonelli, which apparently the Court is not presently disposed to do.
Dethmers and Kelly, JJ., concurred with O’Hara, J.
Smith, J., did not sit.