Court Opinion

ID: 9851264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:34.490949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.579090
License: Public Domain

Fitzgerald, J.
(concurring in part). We concur in Part III of Justice Williams’ opinion. The jury instructions were erroneous and confusing. The trial court also erred by ordering the jury to begin deliberating before counsel could object to the instructions. GCR 1963, 516.2.
However, we do not believe this case is an appropriate vehicle for adopting a theory of comparative negligence. The parties have not had an opportunity to brief or discuss the issue. They did not raise it in the Court of Appeals or this Court. At oral argument, both parties were reluctant to use this case to discuss comparative negligence. We should not inject into a case a theory which the parties are unwilling or have not had an opportunity to discuss.
The proposed adoption of comparative negligence raises problems which transcend this case. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel wondered "with the advent of no-fault legislation, whether or *659not comparative negligence should be adopted at all”. He also wondered "whether or not it should be something that the Legislature does as distinguished from our Courts”.
If the Court accepts the burden of altering a fundamental theory of tort law, we should do so in a carefully informed manner. It does not suffice to say that the issue was briefed in Parsonson v Construction Equipment Co, 386 Mich 61; 191 NW2d 465 (1971). That case was argued May 6, 1971. Only two members of the present Court heard the argument. Although briefs on comparative negligence were requested, that Court did not take a stand on whether it should be adopted.
Comparative negligence is a complex and difficult doctrine. It should not be considered without a proper presentation. Six years have passed since Parsonson was argued. Theories popular then may have been discredited. New. and better theories may have arisen. Experience may have shown that certain versions of the comparative negligence theory are better than others. Indeed, experience may have shown that comparative negligence is not a good tort theory. We do not know from the presentation in this case. We do not have the information we need. This is a major step which should be taken hand-in-hand with the bar. It should not be imposed without an opportunity for full discussion.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Coleman and Ryan, JJ., concurred with Fitzgerald, J.
Blair Moody, Jr., J., took no part in the decision of this case.