157 N.W.2d 300 (Mich.App. 1968), 2877, Bilicki v. W. T. Grant Co.

Docket Nº:Docket Nos. 2877, 2878.
Citation:157 N.W.2d 300, 10 Mich.App. 612
Opinion Judge:Before LESINSKI, CJ, and FITZGERALD and McGREGOR
Party Name:Joseph F. BILICKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. T. GRANT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENITEAU BIRD COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Rose BILICKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. T. GRANT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENI
Attorney:[10 Mich.App. 613] Albert Lopatin, Detroit, Norman L. Zemke, Detroit, of counsel, for appellants. John A. Kruse, Alexander, Buchanan & Conklin, Detroit, for W. T. Grant co. John Feikens, Feikens, Dice, Sweeney & Sullivan, Detroit, for Beniteau Bird Co.
Judge Panel:Before LESINSKI, C.J., and FITZGERALD and McGREGOR, JJ.
Case Date:April 02, 1968
Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 300

157 N.W.2d 300 (Mich.App. 1968)

10 Mich.App. 612

Joseph F. BILICKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

W. T. GRANT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant and

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BENITEAU BIRD COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Third-Party

Defendant-Appellee.

Rose BILICKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

W. T. GRANT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant and

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BENITEAU BIRD COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Third-Party

Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 2877, 2878.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

April 2, 1968

[10 Mich.App. 613] Albert Lopatin, Detroit, Norman L. Zemke, Detroit, of counsel, for appellants.

Page 301

John A. Kruse, Alexander, Buchanan & Conklin, Detroit, for W. T. Grant co.

John Feikens, Feikens, Dice, Sweeney & Sullivan, Detroit, for Beniteau Bird Co.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and FITZGERALD and McGREGOR, JJ.

McGREGOR, Judge.

The determinative question in this case is whether or not the plaintiffs had psittacosis. This was a question requiring expert testimony to be considered by the jury for a finding of fact at the trial.

[10 Mich.App. 614] Defendant W. T. Grant Company purchased parakeets from third-party defendant Beniteau Bird Company, and in turn, sold one to the plaintiff wife. Upon bringing the bird home, she found that it was sickly and attempted to nurse it to health. Approximately three weeks later plaintiff wife became ill, showing symptoms of fever, cough and pneumonia. She entered Henry Ford Hospital with a preliminary diagnosis of psittacosis. 1 Blood tests were made during the course of her illness and the Wayne county and Dearborn departments of health were contacted. The departments of health requested that the plaintiff husband keep the bird until they could examine it. Four days later, the Dearborn department of health gave the husband its permission to kill the bird and instructed him to bring the remains of the bird to the department of health for examination. By the time an examination of the bird's remains was made, they were too far decomposed to be useful for any determination of the cause of the bird's prior illness.

A week after his wife's release from the hospital, plaintiff husband was admitted to Henry Ford Hospital, suffering the same complaints as his wife.

Suit was filed in Wayne...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP