Court Opinion

ID: 9686925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:11:24.643436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.980106
License: Public Domain

Beasley, P.J.
(concurring). I concur in the result only.
As the trial judge indicated and as the evidence makes unmistakably clear, this is a "name and retain”1 case, i.e., defendant Hirkey is a party to *62this suit only because the 1972 "name and retain” amendment to the dramshop act requires it. Conduct of the trial, denial of defendant Hirkey’s motion for directed verdict on completion of plaintiffs case, instructing of the jury, and the fact that on appeal plaintiff does not even ask for a new trial against defendant Hirkey, are only understandable in the context of the "name and retain” amendment. Thus, I cannot join the opinion of the majority which chooses to ignore the name and retain amendment. However, while we follow different paths to decision, both opinions affirm the jury verdict.

 MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993.