Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STANFILL v. POWERS

D.E. HOLBROOK, JR., P.J.

Plaintiff, a guest passenger, instituted suit against the defendant, owner-operator, following a single-vehicle accident 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 plaintiff's contention.

In Manistee Bank Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich. 655; 232 N.W.2d 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 Second, while Manistee Bank Trust Co v McGowan, supra, standing alone is not binding precedent we conclude that when considered in conjunction with Dunham v Lowinger, 395 Mich. 793 (1976), a 6-0 determination, it is.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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STANFILL v. POWERS
(Apr 6, 1976)