Court Opinion

ID: 9572740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:11.545067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:00.097428
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, P. J.
(dissenting). Although I agree with my Brothers’ conclusion that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing defendant permission to amend his answer, I disagree with their finding of no prejudice. If defendant had been permitted to deny ownership of DeHoCo, defendant could have argued that the state controlled DeHoCo and, consequently, shared responsibility for plaintiffs injury. Green v Department of Corrections, 386 Mich 459; 192 NW2d 491 (1971), supports such an argument. The Green Court explained that the state retains the primary and nondelegable duty to insure the well-being of state-sentenced DeHoCo inmates. Also, plaintiff in his answer to defendant’s motion for summary judgment conceded that under Green, supra, the state and city bore concurrent responsibility for plaintiffs injury.
If the trial judge had permitted defendant to amend its answer and argue that the state, too, was liable to plaintiff, the jury might have returned a different verdict. Thus, defendant was prejudiced by the trial judge’s conduct. Consequently, I would reverse.