Court Opinion

ID: 9735878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:34:01.103801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:02.209072
License: Public Domain

Archer, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
The allegedly intoxicated person was "a named defendant” and was "retained in the action” as required by the dramshop act. MCL 436.22(5); MSA 18.993(5).
At trial, defendant Richards admitted intoxication and negligence, but vigorously defended the damages issue on the ground that plaintiff had not sustained serious impairment of body function as a result of the accident. Palmiter defended on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish that one of its employees or agents had served Richards alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated. 144 Mich App 587-588.
The majority concedes that the Legislature did not define the parameters of "named” or "retained” as those words are used in the statute. The majority then states that "it is the duty of this Court to provide definitional guidance within the boundaries of legislative intent.” Ante, p 204. This definitional guidance was provided in Putney v Haskins, 414 Mich 181; 324 NW2d 729, reh den 414 Mich 1111 (1982); Tebo v Havlik, 418 Mich *216350; 343 NW2d 181 (1984), reh den 419 Mich 1201 (1984).1
Unlike the facts in Putney, supra, Richards was "retained in the action until the litigation [was] concluded by trial . . . .” Moreover, there was no settlement, in that plaintiff was not guaranteed a sum certain in money. Although in a pure technical sense Richards’ liability was fixed and limited to a maximum of $20,000, he nevertheless had "a direct financial stake.” Richards admitted liability, but defended on the issue of no serious bodily impairment which if successful would have resulted in a verdict of no cause of action, and would have entitled plaintiff to zero dollars. There was no collusion or fraud. Richards presented a legitimate and rigorous defense.
The trial court opined that without the stipulation between Richards and plaintiff, it would have been virtually impossible for plaintiff to prove her case. The trial court stated that the "evidence of Richards’ visible intoxication in the bar came almost exclusively from the testimony of Dr. Spitz and was based on the breathalizer [sic] result.” (See ante, p 213.) The trial court apparently overlooked the testimony of Kenneth Gazarek, a police officer for the City of Lincoln Park, who observed Richards at the time the accident occurred. Officer Gazarek testified in pertinent part as follows:
Q. Can you tell us what your investigation revealed as to the accident?
A. That Driver #2, being Mrs. Riley, was stopped at the red light on northbound Dix and Arlington and that Driver #1, Mr. Richards, had struck her from behind.
Q. Were observations made with regard to Mr. Richards’ condition?
*217A. Yes.
Q. Did you administer a sobriety test at that time?
A. I believe Officer Fultz talked to him mostly. We did, yes, ask him to say his alphabet.
Q. Can you tell us what a field sobriety test is, what kind of a test you give?
A. Most of the time you just basically ask them to say the alphabet, simple tasks and to walk a straight line, heel to toe, and simple things like that, coordination tests.
Q. Did he tell you how much he had had to drink that night?
A. It’s on the alcohol influence report.
Q. Can you tell us what information he gave you from that report?
A. At that time, he stated: Four beers.
Q. Did you make any observations as to his ability to walk?
A. Can I refresh my . . .
Q. (Interjecting) Yes, absolutely.
A. I didn’t make out this influence report, but it says: Staggering, as far as his walk.
Q. Did you make any observation as to the condition of his eyes, what his eyes looked like?
A. Watery, bloodshot.
Q. Did you make any observations as to whether or not he smelled of alcohol?
A. Yes, he smelled of alcohol. We have that in here also.
Q. Did you make any observations as to the color of his face, whether it was flushed or not?
A. Flushed, I believe — it has flushed.
Q. Was he able to walk a straight line?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. Was he having difficulty standing?
A. I can’t remember exactly, just, on here it says: Staggering. Okay. Had trouble standing, correct, could not walk a straight line, could not say the alphabet.
*218Q. Was he swaying as well?
A. Yes, staggering and swaying.
On the basis of Officer Gazarek’s testimony, Richards was visibly intoxicated at the time the accident occurred. At the time of trial, it was undisputed that the only place that Richards consumed alcohol on the night of the collision was at Palmiter.
The majority concedes that the Legislature did not define the parameters of the "name and retain” provision of the dramshop act, MCL 436.22(5); MSA 18.993(5). On the basis of this Court’s holding in Putney, supra, the majority concludes that there was a violation of the "name and retain” provision. I believe that Putney was either wrongly decided, or incorrectly applied to the facts of this case.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue. The majority not having reached the remaining issues, it is unnecessary to address them.

 See n 1 of the majority opinion, ante, p 202.