Dahn v. Sheets

• Decision Date: 16 March 1981
• Docket Number: Docket No. 49031
• Parties: Eleanor M. DAHN, Guardian of Daniel Allen Nerio, and Eleanor M. Dahn, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert Guy SHEETS, Jack Sheets, and John C. Bintz and Joan Bintz, individuallyand d/b/a Bintz Apple Mountain, Defendants-Appellees. 104 Mich.App. 584, 305 N.W.2d 547
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 547

305 N.W.2d 547

Eleanor M. DAHN, Guardian of Daniel Allen Nerio, and Eleanor

M. Dahn, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert Guy SHEETS, Jack Sheets, and John C. Bintz and Joan

Bintz, individuallyand d/b/a Bintz Apple Mountain,

Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 49031.

104 Mich.App. 584, 305 N.W.2d 547

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 16, 1981.

Released for Publication May 15, 1981.

[104 MICHAPP 587] Alfred J. Fortino, Alma, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert G. Chaklos, Saginaw, for defendants-appellees.

Before BRONSON, P. J., and J. H. GILLIS and BOSMAN, ^* JJ.

BRONSON, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Eleanor Dahn, guardian of Daniel Allen Nerio, instituted suit against defendants in her own right and on behalf of her ward in the Saginaw County Circuit Court pursuant to the dramshop act. ¹ M.C.L. § 436.22; M.S.A. § 18.993. The action was commenced as a result of a February 7, 1975, automobile accident. Defendant Robert Sheets was the driver of the automobile. The mishap occurred near the Bintz Apple Mountain Bar where Sheets and Daniel Nerio, aged 18 and 17 respectively, had been drinking before the accident. Nerio was severely injured, suffering permanent brain damage resulting in speech loss and loss of motor coordination. The trial court found him incompetent to testify at the time of trial.

The action against Robert and Jack Sheets, who were named defendants pursuant to the "name and retain" provision of the dramshop act, was settled prior to trial.

Following the close of proofs, defendants moved for a directed verdict as to Daniel Nerio's claim, [104 MICHAPP 588] which was granted. The jury returned a "no cause" verdict as to Eleanor Dahn's claim. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, and this is an appeal as of right from that order. The facts will be further detailed as they related to the individual issues raised.

Plaintiffs first contend that the dead man's statute, M.C.L. § 600.2166; M.S.A. § 27A.2166, precluded the testimony of Robert Sheets, Charles Roberts, and Sharon Kowaleski as the court had ruled Nerio incompetent to testify. Sheets, as noted earlier, was the driver of the car in which Nerio was injured. Roberts and Kowaleski were employees of the Bintz Apple Mountain Bar on the day of the incident. The trial court held that there was sufficient corroborative testimony introduced so that there was no dead man's statute problem. See, for instance, Sherberneau v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 44 Mich.App. 339, 205 N.W.2d 213 (1973); Hilliker v. Dowell, 54 Mich.App. 249, 220 N.W.2d 712 (1974).

We do not address the trial court's rationale for allowing the testimony because we agree with the panel of our colleagues who determined that the dead man's statute has been "impliedly abrogated" by the Supreme Court's adoption of MRE 601 and contemporaneous abolishment of GCR 1963, 608. ² James v. Dixon, 95 Mich.App. 527, 291 N.W.2d 106 (1980). MRE 601 renders an individual incompetent to testify only if he or she does not possess "sufficient physical or mental capacity or sense of [104 MICHAPP 589] obligation to testify truthfully and understandably". This rule is clearly in conflict with M.C.L. § 600.2166; M.S.A. § 27A.2166. Since rules of evidence are matters involving judicial practice and procedure, they take precedence over conflicting statutes. James, supra, 530, 291 N.W.2d 106; Perin v. Peuler (On Rehearing), 373 Mich. 531, 541-542, 130 N.W.2d 4 (1964).

Plaintiffs submit that this Court should determine whether "questions of public policy as well as basic justice" should preclude testimony under the circumstances of each case. We reject this approach because there is nothing in the language of MRE 601 suggesting that this is permissible. Furthermore, the basic policy considerations are substantially similar in every case in which one party is attempting to exclude evidence via the dead man's statute. Plaintiffs want the evidence excluded because it is hard or difficult to rebut, and defendants want it admitted because otherwise their defense will be substantially weakened or even destroyed. ³

In the instant case, Sheets testified that the intoxicant purchased, beer, was paid for with $5 which he owed Nerio and that the purchase was in satisfaction of the debt. Roberts, the manager of Bintz's bar, testified that his recollection was that Nerio both ordered and paid for the beer. Kowaleski testified that Nerio paid for the beer and picked up the change from the five-dollar bill placed on the bar. Without this testimony, all the defendants could hope for was that the jury would not be convinced of their liability from plaintiffs' presentation of their case. We do not find that [104 MICHAPP 590] either "public policy" or "basic justice" favors the substantial impairment of a potentially viable defense. ⁴

Plaintiff Daniel Nerio asserts that the trial court erred in directing a verdict against him on the basis that he was a noninnocent party under the dramshop act. ⁵ We agree. In deciding whether to grant a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge must consider the evidence and all legitimate inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Caldwell v. Fox, 394 Mich. 401, 407, 231 N.W.2d 46 (1975); Tiffany v. The Christman Co., 93 Mich.App. 267, 284-285, 287 N.W.2d 199 (1979).

Reasonable minds could have disagreed on the proper resolution of this case in light of the testimony adduced. Keith Doering stated that while at the Bintz Apple Mountain Bar he saw Sheets and Nerio, and both appeared to be intoxicated. Doering saw Sheets take money out of his wallet and put it onto the bar. Later, he saw beer sitting in front of Sheets and Nerio, and the money was gone. Moreover, at the time this incident arose, the legal drinking age was 18, while Nerio was only 17 years old. From this testimony, the jury could have concluded that Sheets bought the beer and that Nerio was merely drinking with him. For Nerio to be considered a noninnocent person for purposes of the dramshop act, he must have actively[104 MICHAPP 591] participated in Sheets' intoxication. Active participation is not made out by evidence only tending to show that plaintiff drank with the intoxicated driver. Todd v. Biglow, 51 Mich.App. 346, 214 N.W.2d 733 (1974), lv. den. 391 Mich. 816 (1974).

In its opinion denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, the court stated that since no evidence was presented by Nerio to refute the testimony that he had purchased the beer, he could not be considered an innocent party under the dramshop act. However, the jury was not obligated to accept the defense witnesses' testimony. Both Kowaleski and Roberts were former employees of the tavern, and the jury might have declined to believe their testimony for this reason. This is particularly true in light of the fact that both former employees affirmatively stated that Nerio handed the money to pay for the beer, while Sheets indicated that the five-dollar bill was merely placed on the bar. Nor was the jury required to accept Sheets' testimony that the beer was purchased in satisfaction of a debt he owed Nerio. The record does not indicate that Nerio told Sheets that he agreed that the beer represented satisfaction of the debt. Finally, as Sheets was the individual who actually controlled the money, a jury could conclude that the beer would have been purchased without regard to Nerio's consent or lack thereof.

Plaintiff was not required to offer testimony affirmatively rebutting any aspect of the defense so long as sufficient evidence was introduced to make out a prima facie case of liability. Here, there was evidence introduced from which the jury could have found Nerio not culpable for purposes of a dramshop action. The improper direction of the verdict cannot be considered harmless error as [104 MICHAPP 592] the jury could have concluded that Dahn was not injured by the illegal sale of an intoxicating beverage to Sheets but, rather, that only Nerio was.

Plaintiff Dahn contends that she is also entitled to a new trial because she was prejudiced by the trial court's direction of a verdict against Nerio and statement to the jury that Nerio was a noninnocent party under the terms of the dramshop act. Both the Michigan Supreme Court and this Court have ruled that a trial court may direct a verdict as to one of several codefendants. Sloan v. Detroit United R. Co., 172 Mich. 68, 73, 137...