Green v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 23 May 1995
• Docket Number: Docket No. 156889
• Citation: 535 N.W.2d 233,211 Mich. App. 140
• Parties: Diane D. GREEN and Leslie Lynn Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fraser Robert WILSON, Vivio's Inc. d/b/a Vivio's Food and Spirits, Jason Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Booby Trap Lounge, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 233

535 N.W.2d 233

211 Mich.App. 140

Diane D. GREEN and Leslie Lynn Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.Fraser Robert WILSON, Vivio's Inc. d/b/a Vivio's Food and Spirits, Jason Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Booby Trap Lounge, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 156889.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 7, 1995, at Detroit.

Decided May 23, 1995, at 9:10 a.m.

Released For Publication Aug. 3, 1995.

Gagleard, Addis & Imbrunone, P.C. by Michael A. Gagleard, Royal Oak, for plaintiffs.

Morrison, Morrison, & Finley by Gregory W. Finley, Detroit, and Thomas J. Cory, Southfield, for Vivio's, Inc.

Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. by Kelly A. Freeman, Detroit, for Fraser Wilson.

Kallas & Henk, P.C. by Ted M. Kozerski, Bloomfield Hills, for Jason Enterprises, Inc.

Before WHITE, P.J., and BANDSTRA and CYNAR, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a negligence and dramshop action.Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's dismissal of their action on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction over the allegedly intoxicated person, defendantFraser Wilson.The remaining defendants were reluctantly dismissed by the trial court, over plaintiffs' objections, on the basis of the name and retain provision of the dramshop act, M.C.L. § 436.22(6);M.S.A. § 18.993(6).We reverse.

Plaintiffs, both Michigan residents, allege that the dramshop defendants(Vivio's, Inc., and Jason Enterprises, Inc.) served alcohol to defendant Wilson in Wayne County even though he was visibly intoxicated.While driving home, defendant Wilson--who is a Canadian resident--struck and injured plaintiffs on the Canadian side of the Detroit-Windsor tunnel.This suit followed.

There are two issues that must be resolved in deciding whether personal jurisdiction may be asserted over defendant Wilson in this case: first, whether exercising jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause, and, second, whether exercising jurisdiction would be supported by the Michigan long arm statute.M.C.L. § 600.705;M.S.A. § 27A.705.Jeffrey v. Rapid American Corp., 448 Mich. 178, 185, 529 N.W.2d 644(1995);see alsoMozdy v. Lopez, 197 Mich.App. 356, 358, 494 N.W.2d 866(1992).The due process issue was decided in plaintiffs' favor below and defendants have not cross appealed.However, because the issue is potentially dispositive, it will be addressed by this Court.

In order to satisfy the Due Process Clause, a nonresident defendant must have minimum contacts with the State of Michigan.Mozdy, supra at 359, 494 N.W.2d 866.This depends on whether the defendant purposefully took the opportunity to conduct activities in Michigan, whether the cause of action arises from those activities, and whether the connection is substantial enough to make the assertion of jurisdiction reasonable.Jeffrey, supra at 186, 197, 529 N.W.2d 644;see alsoMozdy, supra at 359, 494 N.W.2d 866.All three prongs of this test must be satisfied.SeeJeffrey, supra at 186, 197, 529 N.W.2d 644;Mozdy, supra at 359, 494 N.W.2d 866.We agree with the trial court that because defendant Wilson voluntarily came to Michigan, patronized Michigan bars, and allegedly violated Michigan law by driving drunk, jurisdiction over him was constitutionally permissible.In other words, defendant Wilson's "conduct and connection" with Michigan was such that he should have anticipated being haled into court here.Witbeck v. Bill Cody's Ranch, Inc., 428 Mich. 659, 667, 411 N.W.2d 439(1987);see alsoJeffrey, supra at 187, 529 N.W.2d 644.

Contrary to defendants' assertions, the Mozdy case involved the opposite situation and in fact supports the assertion of jurisdiction in this case.

In Mozdy, this Court held that it was not constitutionally permissible to assert jurisdiction over two Canadian bars that allegedly had served a visibly intoxicated person who later had an accident in Michigan.Mozdy, supra at 361, 494 N.W.2d 866.In that case, the intoxicated person was from Michigan, the accident occurred in Michigan, but the drinking took place in Canada.Id. at 357, 494 N.W.2d 866.This Court specifically found that, on those facts, "the cause of action did not arise from the defendants' limited [advertisement] activities in Michigan."Id. at 361, 494 N.W.2d 866.By contrast, in this case, the cause of action certainly arose from drinking that allegedly took place in Michigan.

Having decided that an assertion of jurisdiction would be constitutionally permissible in this case, we now consider whether doing so would be supported by Michigan's long arm statute, M.C.L. § 600.705(2);M.S.A. § 27A.705(2).

Michigan's long arm statute has been interpreted to grant the broadest basis for jurisdiction consistent with due process.Schneider v. Linkfield, 389 Mich. 608, 616, 209 N.W.2d 225(1973).Plaintiffs' counsel conceded below that jurisdiction was not appropriate under subsection 1 of the statute.¹SeeM.C.L. § 600.705(1);M.S.A. § 27A.705(1)(nonresident transacts business within the state).Instead, plaintiffs relied on subsection 2, which provides that grounds for personal jurisdiction arise by the "doing or causing an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort."M.C.L. § 600.705(2);M.S.A. § 27A.705(2).An action for tort includes an action provided for by statute.Black v. Rasile, 113 Mich.App. 601, 603, 318 N.W.2d 475(1980).

The complaint in this case states a negligence action against defendant Wilson arising from the automobile accident.However, it also states a dramshop action arising from his allegedly having consumed alcohol in Michigan after being visibly intoxicated.Defendant Wilson is a necessary party to that action by virtue of the dramshop act's name and retain provision, M.C.L. § 436.22(6);M.S.A. § 18.993(6).

Dramshop liability arises from the furnishing of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who later injures another.Id.The site of the accident is fortuitous and completely outside the control of the dramshop defendants.SeeMozdy, supra at 360-361, 494 N.W.2d 866.Thus, in accordance with Mozdy, the bars involved in this case would surely not agree that they should be subject to suit in Canada merely because they served a Canadian patron who went on to have an accident in Canada.

It is true that, as argued by the dramshop defendants, there would be no cause of action in this case but for the automobile accident.However, the basis of the dramshop action arises from the furnishing of alcohol, not merely from the accident.Clearly, if defendant Wilson was served alcohol by these defendants in violation of the statute, it happened in Michigan.

Defendant Wilson allegedly did an act in Michigan, drinking after already being intoxicated, that resulted in a dramshop action to which he is a necessary party.We therefore find that asserting personal jurisdiction over...