Court Opinion

ID: 9504130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:55:43.67382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:53.052845
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring). I continue to believe that MCL 600.2169 is unconstitutional for the reasons set forth in my dissent in McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 38; 597 NW2d 148 (1999) (CAVANAGH, J, dissenting). *580But because a majority of my colleagues disagree, the statute remains in place. Accordingly, the bench and bar are entitled to be guided in its application. It is for that reason that I join the majority opinion’s statutory analysis outlined by Justice MARKMAN.
Nonetheless, I take this opportunity to point out that the difficulties in interpreting and applying § 2169 are highlighted both by the frequency with which a variety of issues surrounding the statute arise and the inability of this Court to reach a consensus on how the statute is to operate. In my view, this serves to validate the many concerns I held when McDougall, supra, was decided, and those concerns remain far from resolved.