Opinion

Hickey v. Zezulka

177 Mich. App. 606
443 N.W.2d 180

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed: Jun 19, 1989
Status: Published
Author: Kelly
On the bench: Kelly, Sullivan, Shamo
Cited by: 6 cases
Authority: More cited than 9.4%

Reversed on other grounds by Hickey v. Zezulka, 439 Mich. 408 (1992)

The opinion

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.

(concurring). I concur in the opinion for affirmance principally because Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398, 413 ; 424 NW2d 248 (1988), reaffirmed the viability of Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65, 76-77 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979). Although both Lockaby and Hickey acted on the cell defects, I do not think Reardon rules out recovery if the building defect is foreseeably acted on by a mental incompetent or a substance impaired actor.

I therefore would affirm the Court of Claims as well as the circuit court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.