Hayrynen v. White Pine Copper Co.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 2111,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 9 Mich.App. 452,157 N.W.2d 502 |
| Parties | Kelley HAYRYNEN and Kathy Hayrynen, by their Next Friend, Douglas Hayrynen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHITE PINE COPPER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and William Briski, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Andrew H. Wisti, Wisti & Jaaskelainen, Hancock, for appellants.
Humphrey & Weis, Ironwood, for appellees.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BURNS and HOLBROOK, JJ.
The plaintiffs in this appeal are the minor children of Douglas Hayrynen, who was injured in an automobile accident on December 16, 1961, which to date has produced a multitude of lawsuits, this being the only one to reach the appellate level.
Briefly, the accident happened as follows: Douglas Hayrynen was a passenger in an automobile returning to his home in South Range, Michigan, from his place of employment, the White Pine Copper Company in White Pine. The vehicle in which he was a passenger was owned and operated by William F. Stone. There were 4 other passengers in this vehicle in addition to the driver and Hayrynen. While operating the vehicle on the roadway known as the Greenland road in Ontonagon county, the vehicle of the defendant White Pine Copper Company, operated by its employee, William Briski attempted to pass another vehicle in a no-passing zone and, as a result, collided head-on with the vehicle in which Hayrynen was a passenger. As a result of this collision, the driver of the vehicle in which Hayrynen was a passenger was killed and the 5 passengers were seriously injured.
Previous lawsuits by the passengers of the Stone vehicle included separate legal actions against the defendants herein, which suits were joined in by the wives of the injured parties. The case of the driver was tried first and resulted in a substantial award to the widow of the deceased driver of the vehicle in which Hayrynen was injured. In this particular case, the question of liability was determined by the jury and likewise the question of damages.
Subsequent cases, including Hayrynen's own case, were likewise tried and the liability of the defendants was admitted, the cases being tried only on the question of damages.
The instant case presents 2 novel questions, brought as it is by the minor children of Douglas Hayrynen. While the previous cases involve a cause of action by the injured parties themselves, or their wives suing for loss of consortium, this case was commenced in the circuit court for the county of Ontonagon by Hayrynen's minor children. In charging defendants with willful and wanton negligence, they assert that they had, as a result of this accident, suffered and sustained a loss of companionship, love and affection of their father, and that they had suffered loss of support and mental strain, agony, torment, and distress by reason of the injuries suffered by the father.
Defendants filed their answer to the complaint and, in addition, filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the defendant. Following oral arguments and the filing of briefs on the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court entered an order allowing defendants' motion for summary judgment, and it is from this order that plaintiffs appealed to this Court.
Two novel questions are placed before us. The first question asked is whether the children of a parent negligently injured by another have a cause of action against the person causing the injuries to the parent. This should perhaps be narrowed down to a slightly more succinct definition of their suggested cause of action as set forth in the instant case, i.e., whether they have a legally protectible interest in their familial relationship with their father.
The second question, more ingenious, asks whether a third party beneficiary contract is created where a person, on re-examination for the retention of his driver's license by an official of the office of the secretary of State, agrees to comply with Michigan's motor vehicle laws and subsequently injures someone on the highways of this State.
Turning first to the question of the possibility of recovery for loss of companionship and injury by the children of an injured parent, we are forced to conclude with appellants that 'there is little statutory or prior judicial authority at the present time with respect to the protection and enforcement of this right.'
The sole case that appellant cites, with even an oblique application to this case, appears in the decision of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Russick v. Hicks (1949), D.C. 85 F.Supp. 281. This case furnishes us little precedent and scant comfort to the plaintiffs since it does not deal with an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borer v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Ins. Co. (La.App.1966) 184 So.2d 594; Feneff v. New York C. & H.R.R. Co. (1909) 203 Mass. 278, 89 N.E. 436; Hayrynen v. White Pine Copper Co. (1968) 9 Mich.App. 452, 157 N.W.2d 502; Miller v. Monsen (1949) 228 Minn. 400, 37 N.W.2d 543; Stout v. Kansas City Terminal R. Co. (1913) 172 Mo.App.......
-
Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co., 13838
...72 Cal.App.3d 380, 140 Cal.Rptr. 186 (1977); Clark v. Suncoast Hospital, Inc., supra; Hankins v. Derby, supra; Hayrynen v. White, 9 Mich.App. 452, 157 N.W.2d 502 (1968); Duhan v. Milanowski, 75 Misc.2d 1078, 348 N.Y.S.2d 696 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1973); Pleasant v. Washington Sand & Gravel Co., supra......
-
Williams v. Hook
...consortium. The Michigan Court of Appeals had earlier refused to recognize the cause of action in Hayrynen v. White Pine Copper Co., 9 Mich.App. 452, 157 N.W.2d 502, 504 (1968). The Washington and Michigan courts recognized the cause of action in the face of arguments that the decision to r......
-
Berger v. Weber
...does not have such a cause of action because of the lack of "statutory or prior judicial authority". Hayrynen v. White Pine Copper Co., 9 Mich.App. 452, 455-456, 157 N.W.2d 502 (1968). Our Court by way of dicta, has stated in two cases that a child does not have an independent cause of acti......