# Davis v. Thornton

> Michigan Supreme Court · October 8, 1970 · 384 Mich. 138

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685652

## Case

- **Full name:** Davis v. Thornton
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 8, 1970
- **Citations:** 384 Mich. 138; 180 N.W.2d 11; 45 A.L.R. 3d 778; 1970 Mich. LEXIS 108
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kelly
- **Judges:** Brennan, Black, Kavanagh, Adams, Dethmers, Kelly
- **Cited by:** 88 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/9685652

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that reasonable people might conclude that the *589 defendant’s act of leaving his keys in an unlocked car, which was later stolen and involved in an accident, was “not too remote a cause of the plaintiffs injuries and that the joyrider’s intervention did not sever tha…
- stating that reasonable persons might conclude that the defendant’s act of leaving his keys in an unlocked car, which was later stolen and involved in an accident, was “not too remote a cause of the plaintiffs injuries and that the joyrider’s intervention did not sever that ca…
- stating that reasonable people might conclude that the defendant's act of leaving his keys in an unlocked car, which was later stolen and involved in an accident, was "not too remote a cause of the plaintiff's injuries and that the joyrider's intervention did not sever that ca…
- finding that once negligence is found, “[t]he jury must then bridge the gap between the plaintiff’s injuries and the defendant’s negligence. This is the determination of cause and the remoteness of effect.”
- holding that the defendant may be liable for the harms inflicted by a group of minors who stole defendant's car after he left the car unlocked with the keys inside

## Opinion text

Kelly, J.
{dissenting). The Court of Appeals did not err when it denied plaintiffs’ application for delayed appeal on the ground that their application failed to meet the requirements of OCR 1963, 806.4 (2) and 803.3.
The appeal to this Court is dismissed as having been improvidently granted. Costs to defendants.
Dethmers, J., concurred with Kelly, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9685652. Public record. Not legal advice.