# Felgner v. Anderson

> Michigan Supreme Court · March 1, 1965 · 375 Mich. 23

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728115

## Case

- **Full name:** Felgner v. Anderson
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 1, 1965
- **Citations:** 375 Mich. 23; 133 N.W.2d 136; 26 A.L.R. 3d 531; 1965 Mich. LEXIS 241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Adams
- **Judges:** Kelly, Kavanagh, Dethmers, Black, O'Hara, Souris, Smith, Adams
- **Cited by:** 106 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/9728115

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[t]he measure of duty of a negligence-charged defendant is ... 'reasonable care appropriate to the circumstances of the case, a standard of negligence which allows the fact finder to determine that some factual circumstances reasonably require greater or lesser d…
- rejecting implied assumption of risk as a total bar to recovery, noting it as “a defendant’s doctrine which restricts liability and so cuts down the compensation of accident victims”

## Opinion text

Adams, J.
(concurring in affirmance). I concur with Justice Souris in affirmance of the trial judge for the reasons stated in sections 1 and 2 of his opinion. I do not believe it essential to decision in this case to determine that the doctrine of assumption of risk should be done away with in this State. The trial judge concluded that a charge as to assumption of risk should not be given to the jury since assumption of risk is not in the case. I agree with that analysis of the proofs. I would defer considera *60 tion of the elimination of this doctrine until such time as that question is specifically before the Court.
Smith, J., concurred with Adams, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728115. Public record. Not legal advice.