Cornack v. Sweeney
Decision Date | 19 October 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 62972 |
Citation | 127 Mich.App. 375,339 N.W.2d 26 |
Parties | Betty J. CORNACK, As Next Friend of Michael John Cornack, a Minor, and Betty J. Cornack, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mabel SWEENEY and Grace Bell d/b/a Lakeview Grocery, Defendants-Appellants. 127 Mich.App. 375, 339 N.W.2d 26 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[127 MICHAPP 376] Marston, Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin & O'Hare, P.C. by Kathleen L. Bogas, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Kaufman, Payton & Kallas by Constantine N. Kallas, Southfield, for defendants-appellants.
Before WAHLS, P.J., and GRIBBS and WARSHAWSKY, * JJ.
The defendants, Mabel Sweeney and Grace Bell, doing business as Lakeview Grocery, bring an interlocutory appeal from a denial of their motion for partial summary judgment. Michael John Cornack, a minor, allegedly purchased alcoholic beverages from the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the sale was illegal since Michael was visibly intoxicated and was a minor. Later, while driving an automobile, Michael allegedly lost control of the vehicle and struck a parked automobile, causing injuries to himself. Intoxication is alleged as the cause of the accident. Betty J. Cornack, Michael's mother, individually and as next friend of Michael, sued the defendants for common law negligence and under the dramshop act, M.C.L. Sec. 436.22; M.S.A. Sec. 18.993. 1 The defendants moved for [127 MICHAPP 377] summary judgment against Michael Cornack arguing that no common law action exists and that the allegedly intoxicated person is barred from recovering under the dramshop act. The trial court denied the motion, prompting this appeal. We reverse.
First, the defendants are correct in their assertion that no common law action remains for negligently selling alcohol to minors or visibly intoxicated persons. The Michigan Supreme Court considered this issue in Browder v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 413 Mich. 603, 611-612, 321 N.W.2d 668 (1982), and declared:
Thus, the trial court should have granted partial summary judgment on the common law claim.
We next consider whether Michael Cornack is barred from recovery under the dramshop act as an intoxicated minor. Jurisdictions are split on whether an intoxicated person can recover for his own injuries. Some hold that he can; others hold that he cannot. See Anno., 65 A.L.R.2d 923, Sec. 4, pp. 927-928. The plaintiff concedes that Michigan is among those states which deny recovery 2 but argues that this rule applies only to intoxicated adults. There is no doubt that a minor driver is held to the same standard of conduct as an adult. Constantino v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 407 Mich. 896, 284 N.W.2d 463 (1979). The issue for our consideration is whether an intoxicated minor driver is excepted from this rule under the dramshop act. We hold that he is not. In this regard, the dramshop act treats intoxicated minors as it would intoxicated adults.
The Michigan Supreme Court has held that intoxicated adults may not recover for their injuries.
Brooks v. Cook, 44 Mich. 617, 618-619, 7 N.W. 216 (1880).
There is no indication that the Legislature intended to except minors from this rule. The plaintiff correctly points out that the Michigan cases to date have dealt only with intoxicated adults, but the holdings of those cases are clearly applicable to minors. Had the Legislature intended a remedy for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LaGuire v. Kain
...disposition on the basis that the statute failed to create a cause of action in favor of plaintiffs. Relying on Cornack v. Sweeney, 127 Mich.App. 375, 339 N.W.2d 26 (1983), the defendant argued that no cause of action existed in favor of the minor or his estate before the 1986 amendments an......
-
Craig v. Larson
...171 Mich.App. 563, 430 N.W.2d 783 (1988); Hasty v. Broughton, 133 Mich.App. 107, 114, 348 N.W.2d 299 (1984); Cornack v. Sweeney, 127 Mich.App. 375, 378-380, 339 N.W.2d 26 (1983). The "name and retain" provision added in 1972 suggests that the Legislature did not envision "the minor or alleg......
-
Hasty v. Broughton
...effective date of the amendment, the appellate courts have not specifically addressed the statute as amended. In Cornack v. Sweeney, 127 Mich.App. 375, 339 N.W.2d 26 (1983), and Lucido v. Apollo Lanes & Bar, Inc., 123 Mich.App. 267, 333 N.W.2d 246 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1087 (1983), thi......
-
Osner v. Boughner
...an automobile, he is charged with the same standard of conduct as an adult. [Id. ] Thereafter, this Court in Cornack v. Sweeney, 127 Mich.App. 375, 378, 339 N.W.2d 26 (1983), lv. den. 418 Mich. 917 (1984), citing Constantino, supra, There is no doubt that a minor driver is held to the same ......