Hogston v. Leonard

Michigan Court of Appeals

Hogston v. Leonard

264 N.W.2d 36, 80 Mich. App. 488, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2062

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 4, 1978

DocketDocket 30677

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 N.W.2d 36 (Hogston v. Leonard) 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

Hogston v. Leonard, 264 N.W.2d 36, 80 Mich. App. 488, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2062 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

N. J. Kaufman, J.

Defendant appeals from a *489 $10,000 judgment, entered pursuant to an adverse jury verdict, for injuries sustained by plaintiff after being assaulted and beaten by defendant’s bartender. On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff did not present evidence showing that the bartender was acting within the scope of his employment. Therefore, defendant argues that his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted by the trial court. We disagree.

Our standard of review has been oft enunciated by the Supreme Court. See e.g. Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 407; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), noting:

"In deciding whether or not to grant a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge must accord to the non-moving party the benefit of viewing the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the evidence, when viewed in this manner, establishes a prima facie case, the motion for a directed verdict must be denied.”

An application of that standard to the facts of this case leads us to the conclusion that a prima facie case was established. The evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, shows that after plaintiff had consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol to appear drunk, the bartender threw him through the swinging doors of the bar and onto the street, where the bartender proceeded to beat plaintiff, inflicting serious injury.

Affirmed.

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

N. J. Kaufman, J.

Defendant appeals from a *489 $10,000 judgment, entered pursuant to an adverse jury verdict, for injuries sustained by plaintiff after being assaulted and beaten by defendant’s bartender. On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff did not present evidence showing that the bartender was acting within the scope of his employment. Therefore, defendant argues that his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted by the trial court. We disagree.

Our standard of review has been oft enunciated by the Supreme Court. See e.g. Caldwell v Fox, 394 Mich 401, 407; 231 NW2d 46 (1975), noting:

"In deciding whether or not to grant a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge must accord to the non-moving party the benefit of viewing the testimony and all legitimate inferences that may be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the evidence, when viewed in this manner, establishes a prima facie case, the motion for a directed verdict must be denied.”

An application of that standard to the facts of this case leads us to the conclusion that a prima facie case was established. The evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, shows that after plaintiff had consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol to appear drunk, the bartender threw him through the swinging doors of the bar and onto the street, where the bartender proceeded to beat plaintiff, inflicting serious injury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 N.W.2d 36, 80 Mich. App. 488, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogston-v-leonard-michctapp-1978.

Opinion

N. J. Kaufman, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack