once the existence of a duty is established, it is for the jury to decide whether the defendant breached that duty
How later courts described this case
- once the existence of a duty is established, it is for the jury to decide whether the defendant breached that duty
- boy scout leader, who voluntarily agreed to transport boy scouts from meeting, assumed a duty to perform carefully, regardless of his status as the troop leader
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sullivan, J.
(dissenting). I dissent.
Defendant Lantz delivered the 11 ^-year-old plaintiff, José Terrell, to his home. Defendant stopped his car across the street from the Terrell home and let the boy out. Young Mr. Terrell started to cross the street when he was hit by a car.
Defendant owed no special duty to plaintiff. The ordinary rules of negligence apply. Plaintiff minor was not in a position where, as suggested by the majority, he had lost control to protect himself. As stated in Madley v Evening News Ass’n, 167 Mich *723 App 338, 342 ; 421 NW2d 682 (1988): "Most children at the age of twelve can appreciate the dangers of crossing a busy street. . . .”
Plaintiff asks this Court to create some special relationship between plaintiff and defendant that would in turn create a duty on the part of defendant. I, for one, decline to accept the invitation.
I would affirm.