Opinion

Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co.

  • 439 Mich. 370
  • 483 N.W.2d 844
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Filed
May 8, 1992
Status
Published
Author
Griffin
On the bench
Griffin, Cavanagh, Levin, Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Mallett
Cited by
142 cases

Criticized on other grounds by Gross v. General Motors Corp., 448 Mich. 147 (1995)

stating that in order to establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages

How later courts described this case

  • stating that in order to establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages
  • holding that venue is proper in any county where part of the cause of action arose
  • recognizing that venue for a tort claim may be proper in multiple counties
  • if the plain and ordinary meaning of the language is clear, judicial construction is normally neither necessary nor permitted

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Criticized on other grounds by Gross v. General Motors Corp., 448 Mich. 147 (1995)

    439 Mich 370, 376; 483 NW2d 844 (1992), criticized on other grounds in Gross v General Motors Corp, 448 Mich 147, 165; 528 NW2d 707 (1995),
    Michigan Supreme CourtMar 8, 1995other groundsmedium confidenceRead it

The opinion

Griffin, J.

(dissenting). For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, I dissent.

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.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.