Fryover v. Forbes

Michigan Court of Appeals

Fryover v. Forbes

439 N.W.2d 284, 176 Mich. App. 36

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1989

DocketDocket 102270

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 439 N.W.2d 284 (Fryover v. Forbes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fryover v. Forbes, 439 N.W.2d 284, 176 Mich. App. 36 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

Gillis, J.

Penny Fryover was sixteen weeks pregnant with Karl James Fryover when both were killed because she swerved her vehicle in an attempt to avoid hitting a dog owned by defendants. Plaintiff brought wrongful death suits on behalf of both Penny and Karl. Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) as to plaintiffs wrongful death suit regarding Karl, claiming that a nonviable fetus is not a person under the wrongful death act. The trial court granted defendants’ motion relying on this Court’s decision in Toth v Goree, 65 Mich App 296; 237 NW2d 297 (1975), lv den 396 Mich 836 (1976). We agree with Judge Maher’s dissent in Toth and, therefore, reverse the trial court’s decision. See also Presley v Newport Hospital, 117 RI 177; 365 A2d 748 (1976).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

M.J. Talbot, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gillis, J.

Penny Fryover was sixteen weeks pregnant with Karl James Fryover when both were killed because she swerved her vehicle in an attempt to avoid hitting a dog owned by defendants. Plaintiff brought wrongful death suits on behalf of both Penny and Karl. Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) as to plaintiffs wrongful death suit regarding Karl, claiming that a nonviable fetus is not a person under the wrongful death act. The trial court granted defendants’ motion relying on this Court’s decision in Toth v Goree, 65 Mich App 296; 237 NW2d 297 (1975), lv den 396 Mich 836 (1976). We agree with Judge Maher’s dissent in Toth and, therefore, reverse the trial court’s decision. See also Presley v Newport Hospital, 117 RI 177; 365 A2d 748 (1976).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

M.J. Talbot, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 N.W.2d 284, 176 Mich. App. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fryover-v-forbes-michctapp-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack