Summary
The Supreme Court of Michigan held that a plaintiff may join a civil-damage-act claim against tavern owners with a negligence claim against an intoxicated motorist when the claims arise from the same motor-vehicle collision. The court also held that a pretrial motion to strike portions of the damages allegations was improper because the recoverability and extent of damages depended on evidence not yet presented.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a plaintiff may join in one action a civil damage act claim against tavern owners and a negligence claim against the intoxicated motorist.
- Whether the plaintiff's allegations concerning damages arising from her husband's and children's injuries and loss of consortium could be stricken before trial on the pleadings.
- Whether a motion to strike may be used before trial to decide anticipated evidentiary questions concerning the admissibility and recoverability of alleged damages.
Holdings
- The causes of action could be pleaded and tried together because Michigan procedure permits joinder when liability is asserted against all material defendants or when sufficient grounds exist to promote the convenient administration of justice.
- The motion to strike should have been denied without prejudice because the declaration was not insufficient, indefinite, uncertain, incomplete, scandalous, impertinent, or nonconforming; the recoverability and admissibility of the alleged damages depended on evidence not yet received.
Key quotations
“Now that it is here, we hold with the trial judge that this declaration is good as against the presented question and that the 2 causes of action can be pleaded and tried together.” (346 Mich. at 366-67)
“Therefore, and to make things plain for future cases where a plaintiff possessed of separate causes of action against separate defendants assumes to declare upon and try such causes together, it is ruled that the test will be whether (a) the liability is asserted against all of the material defendants, or (b), whether "sufficient grounds for uniting the causes of action in order to promote the convenient administration of justice" are made to appear.” (346 Mich. at 368)
“This we cannot do (Albert v. Chambers, 335 Mich 111), and such is but another way of saying that the motion to strike before trial cannot under our practice be utilized as an instrument of testing evidentiary questions.” (346 Mich. at 369-70)
“The motion of the defendant bar owners, to strike certain portions of the damage allegations from plaintiff's declaration, should have been denied.” (346 Mich. at 374)
Factual background
The plaintiff alleged that multiple taverns unlawfully furnished alcohol to Burtenshaw while he was intoxicated and that Burtenshaw then drove on the wrong side of the highway and collided head-on with a vehicle occupied by the plaintiff, her husband, and their children. She alleged personal injuries, loss of support and services resulting from her husband's injuries, expenses and services relating to her children's injuries, and loss of consortium. The opinion considered only the allegations in the declaration, not trial evidence.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a declaration alleging negligence against the intoxicated motorist Burtenshaw and liability under Michigan's civil damage act against multiple tavern defendants. The trial court denied Corky's Bar's motion to dismiss for misjoinder or compel an election. It granted the Old Bar defendants' motion to strike damages allegedly arising from the husband's and children's injuries but denied the motion as to loss of consortium. The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed the denial of the misjoinder motion and reversed the order granting the motion to strike.
Remand instructions
The order denying Corky's Bar's motion concerning misjoinder and compelled election was affirmed. The order granting the bar owners' motion to strike portions of the damage allegations was reversed, and the circuit court was directed to enter an order denying that motion without prejudice to objections or motions during trial. Plaintiff was awarded costs on each appeal.