# Selmo v. Baratono

> Michigan Court of Appeals · November 30, 1970 · 28 Mich. App. 217

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679151

## Case

- **Full name:** Selmo v. Baratono
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 30, 1970
- **Citations:** 28 Mich. App. 217; 384 Mich. 834; 184 N.W.2d 367; 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Hara
- **Judges:** Fitzgerald, Gillis, O'Hara
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679151

## Opinion text

O’Hara, J.
(concurring).
I concur with Judge Gillis, both in result and in the body of his opinion and I have indorsed it.
I write separately only to emphasize what I consider an essential distinction to be clearly recognized ; namely, the difference between a jury instruction that the proofs established that a party-defendant violated a statute and thus was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, but leaving the question of proximate causality to the jury (or the *229 judge when the trier of the facts) and the direction of a verdict of liability, leaving to the trier of the facts only the assessment of damages.
Assuming arguendo, that defendant General Motors had joined in a motion for a directed verdict of liability against defendant Curran, I would perforce hold that on the record the trial judge was obligated to deny it because of the remaining fact question of proximate causality.
A request to charge that defendant Curran was guilty of negligence as a matter of law is another matter.
As I read the record, I, at least, cannot find any such specific request to charge having been made and a denial thereof preserved. Hence, under settled law, the question is not before us on review.
Consequently, I join in affirming the denial of the motion for a new trial and affirming the judgment entered upon the jury verdict.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679151. Public record. Not legal advice.