Stanfill v. Powers

Michigan Court of Appeals

Stanfill v. Powers

243 N.W.2d 24, 68 Mich. App. 488, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1019

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1976

DocketDocket 24912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 N.W.2d 24 (Stanfill v. Powers) 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

Stanfill v. Powers, 243 N.W.2d 24, 68 Mich. App. 488, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1019 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J.

Plaintiff, a guest passenger, instituted suit against the defendant, owner-operator, following a single-vehicle accident *489 which occurred on July 4, 1970. A jury trial was held on May 5 and 6, 1975, resulting in a verdict of no cause of action.

On appeal plaintiff raises two allegations of error. Resolution of the first, however, is dispositive.

Plaintiff initially contends that the trial court reversibly erred by instructing the jury that under the guest passenger statute, MCLA 257.401; MSA 9.2101, it was necessary for the jury to find that the defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence in order for the plaintiff to recover. We agree with plaintiffs contention.

In Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655; 232 NW2d 636 (1975), the Michigan Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision held the guest passenger statute unconstitutional as violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan Constitution. While we do not feel bound to follow a 3-2 decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, we nevertheless choose to do so for two reasons. First, we agree with the logic and reasoning of Justice Levin’s majority opinion in that case. Second, while Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, supra, standing -alone is not binding precedent we conclude that when considered in conjunction with Dunham v Lowinger, 395 Mich 793 (1976), a 6-0 determination, it is.

The jury verdict is therefore set aside and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J.

Plaintiff, a guest passenger, instituted suit against the defendant, owner-operator, following a single-vehicle accident *489 which occurred on July 4, 1970. A jury trial was held on May 5 and 6, 1975, resulting in a verdict of no cause of action.

On appeal plaintiff raises two allegations of error. Resolution of the first, however, is dispositive.

Plaintiff initially contends that the trial court reversibly erred by instructing the jury that under the guest passenger statute, MCLA 257.401; MSA 9.2101, it was necessary for the jury to find that the defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence in order for the plaintiff to recover. We agree with plaintiffs contention.

In Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655; 232 NW2d 636 (1975), the Michigan Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision held the guest passenger statute unconstitutional as violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan Constitution. While we do not feel bound to follow a 3-2 decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, we nevertheless choose to do so for two reasons. First, we agree with the logic and reasoning of Justice Levin’s majority opinion in that case. Second, while Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, supra, standing -alone is not binding precedent we conclude that when considered in conjunction with Dunham v Lowinger, 395 Mich 793 (1976), a 6-0 determination, it is.

The jury verdict is therefore set aside and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 N.W.2d 24, 68 Mich. App. 488, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfill-v-powers-michctapp-1976.

Opinion

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack