Court Opinion

ID: 9722244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:22:08.718228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:32.889866
License: Public Domain

Danhof, P. J.
(dissenting). I would affirm the trial court’s application of Lord Mansfield’s rule for the reasons set forth in People v Wiseman, 63 Mich App 137; 234 NW2d 429 (1975). Also in Maxwell v Maxwell, 15 Mich App 607, 618; 167 NW2d 114 (1969), lv den, 381 Mich 815 (1969), then Judge (now Justice) Levin discussed what is known as Lord Mansfield’s rule in detail. He concluded that opinion as follows:
"However, if that is to become the law of this State, the Supreme Court must modify precedent which controlled the deliberations of the trial judge and which controls ours as well.”
Hence, I must conclude that any such change as the majority wishes to accomplish should be made by the Supreme Court of this state.
The plaintiff also appeals the trial court’s denial of his request at trial to order the defendant to take a blood test. The plaintiff cites no authority in support of such a request as made here, nor do I perceive of any. Having failed to brief this issue, I would consider it abandoned on appeal. Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).
Therefore, I dissent from the majority opinion.