Court Opinion

ID: 9723072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:01:47.011127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:44.408406
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(concurring). I concur in the opinion for affirmance principally because Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398, 413; 424 NW2d 248 (1988), reaffirmed the viability of Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65, 76-77; 276 NW2d 1 (1979). Although both Lockaby and Hickey acted on the cell defects, I do not think Reardon rules out recovery if the building defect is foreseeably acted on by a mental incompetent or a substance impaired actor.
I therefore would affirm the Court of Claims as well as the circuit court.