Boulet v. Brunswick Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1981
• Docket Number: Nos. 52084,52213,s. 52084
• Citation: 107 Mich.App. 589,309 N.W.2d 680
• Parties: Laurent BOULET, individually and as Next Friend David Boulet, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and Lawrence Kaye, jointly andseverally, Defendants-Appellants. 107 Mich.App. 589, 309 N.W.2d 680
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 680

309 N.W.2d 680

Laurent BOULET, individually and as Next FriendDavid Boulet, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and Lawrence Kaye, jointly andseverallyDefendants-Appellants.

Nos. 52084, 52213.

107 Mich.App. 589, 309 N.W.2d 680

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

July 7, 1981.

Released for Publication Sept. 1, 1981.

[107 MICHAPP 590]Frederick B. Bellamy, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

Thomas R. Bowen, Detroit, John A. Kruse, Detroit, for defendant-appellant, Brunswick Corporation.

Wayne L. Ogne, Troy, for defendant-appellant, Lawrence Kaye.

Before BASHARA, P. J., and KAUFMAN and BANKS, ^* JJ.

[107 MICHAPP 591] PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal an order of the chief judge of Macomb County Circuit Court which rejected a change of venue from Wayne County Circuit Court and ordered venue returned to Wayne County.

Plaintiffs, individually and as next friend of David Boulet, commenced this action on July 19, 1979, in Wayne County Circuit Court.David Boulet was rendered a quadriplegic after sustaining serious injuries during a high school football game in which he was participating as a player for Warren Woods High School.DefendantLawrence Kaye is the high school football coach.DefendantBrunswick Corporation is the manufacturer of the football helmet worn by David Boulet at the time of the accident.Plaintiff alleges that Kaye failed to adequately instruct, supervise, and train David Boulet to participate in the high school football program and that such failure proximately caused David Boulet's injuries.Plaintiff also contends that the football helmet manufactured by Brunswick was defective and that said defects contributed to David Boulet's disabling injuries.

Both defendants filed motions to change venue to Macomb County Circuit Court pursuant to GCR 1963, 403.

At the hearing on the motion, it was conceded by all parties that venue was properly laid in either Wayne or Macomb Counties.The record reveals that the accident occurred in Macomb County.Furthermore, most of the intended witnesses, including plaintiff, and David Boulet, reside in Macomb County.Venue was originally properly placed in Wayne County because the resident agent for Brunswick was located in Detroit, M.C.L. § 600.1627;M.S.A. § 27A.1627.

The court ruled that trial in Macomb County[107 MICHAPP 592] would be more convenient than in Wayne.An order was issued transferring venue.Plaintiff did not appeal the order to this Court.Rather, they filed a motion in Macomb County Circuit Court seeking return of venue to Wayne County.

The chief judge of the Macomb County Circuit Court ruled that he had a duty to supervise case flow management under GCR 1963, 925.He opined that it was his obligation to insure that cases were not placed upon the circuit court's docket in a manner contrary to law.It was held that the change of venue was void ab initio because the Wayne County judge did not comply with the requirements established in the Manual for Court Administration Michigan, § 2000, ch. 3, P I-C, pp. 2081-2082(October 1, 1978), which in pertinent part provides:

"A judge should not order a change of venue without consulting the chief judge or court administrator of the court to which venue is being changed concerning scheduling of the case and other important matters.Unless grounds for disqualification exist, a judge changing venue in a case is expected to accompany the case and conduct the trial."

The chief judge returned venue to Wayne County with instructions to consult with him or the court administrator before transferring venue in the future.

Defendants appeal, alleging that the chief judge of the Macomb County Circuit Court exceeded his authority by refusing to accept the transfer of venue.We agree and order that the matter be returned to the Macomb County Circuit Court.

Since venue is proper in either county, GCR 1963, 403 is controlling.It states:

[107 MICHAPP 593]"The venue of any civil action properly laid, or of an appeal from any order, decision, or opinion of any state board, commission, or agency, authorized under the laws of this state to promulgate rules and regulations, may be changed to any other county by order of the court upon timely motion by one of the parties, for convenience of parties and witnesses, or, in the case of appellate review of the administrative proceedings aforementioned, for convenience of counsel, or when an impartial trial cannot be held in the county wherein the action is pending."

Accordingly, inconvenience to the parties and witnesses is a proper basis for change of venue...