# Hickey v. Zezulka

> Michigan Court of Appeals · June 19, 1989 · 177 Mich. App. 606

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723072

## Case

- **Full name:** Hickey v. Zezulka; Hickey v. Michigan State University
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 19, 1989
- **Citations:** 177 Mich. App. 606; 443 N.W.2d 180
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kelly
- **Judges:** Kelly, Sullivan, Shamo
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Hickey v. Zezulka, 439 Mich. 408 (1992).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723072

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723072. Public record. Not legal advice.