Manie v. Matson Oldsmobile-Cadillac Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 1057,OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC,1057,3
• Citation: 2 Mich.App. 315,139 N.W.2d 776
• Parties: Florence NANIE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATSONCOMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 776

139 N.W.2d 776

2 Mich.App. 315

Florence NANIE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATSON OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Cal. No. 1057.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Feb. 9, 1966.

Harold M. Street, Poppen, Street & Sorensen, Muskegon, for appellant.

Vernon D. Kortering, Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dilley, Muskegon, for appellee.

Before FITZGERALD, P. J., and HOLBROOK and T. G. KAVANAGH, JJ.

FITZGERALD, Presiding Judge.

The unusual train of events which brings about this case and the attendant appeal produces questions for decision by this Court which are no less fascinating than the facts themselves. Broadly stated, the issue before us is whether the plaintiff properly stated a cause of action based on the misadventures which befell her in December, 1963, all stemming from the purchase of a car.

A brief resume produces this intriguing fact situation: On December 6, 1963, Ernest Manie, the husband of the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the Matson Oldsmobile-Cadillac Company in Muskegon to purchase a 1960 Cadillac automobile with a 1961 Comet to be traded in on it. The 1961 Comet had a trailer hitch attached, which was to be removed by the Grand Rapids firm which originally installed it, prior to the contemplated exchange. At that time, license plates remained with the same owner and had it not been for the removal of the trailer hitch, the plates would have been switched from the Comet to the Cadillac. However, as an accommodation to Mr. Manie, a salesman for defendant company attached a 'dealer plate' to the Cadillac to be used until the trailer hitch could be removed in Grand Rapids and the Comet returned.

The Manies, driving the two cars, went to Grand Rapids, accompanied by Mrs. Manie's sister. After the trailer hitch was removed, Mr. Manie drove the Comet back to Muskegon and Mrs. Manie, driving the Cadillac, decided to do some Christmas shopping. At about 9:30 p. m., a Wyoming police department cruiser required her to pull over to the side of the road and she was requested to follow the cruiser to police headquarters. After Mr. Manie arrived home about 10:30, he received a telephone call that Mrs. Manie was being held in the Wyoming police station for driving a car with 'stolen plates'. Mr. Manie called the defendant company's salesman who offered to take another dealer plate to the police station for use in returning the Cadillac to Muskegon, but Mr. Manie declined the offer, picked up the plate himself and took it to the Wyoming police station. By the time Mrs. Manie was able to leave, it was approximately 2 a. m. the following day.

Mrs. Manie received a ticket for illegal use of dealer plates. The salesman for defendant company called the Wyoming police station and was informed that the dealer plate he had placed on the Cadillac was registered in the name of the operator of a used car lot and automobile auction in the Grand Rapids area. The following day, Mrs. Manie went to defendant's place of business and discussed the ticket with the salesman who offered to take care of the ticket by way of explaining the matter to the proper officials. Mrs. Manie declined the offer and retained an attorney to represent her on the ticket. Ultimately, the matter was explained to the authorities regarding how she happened to have the plate and this was accepted by the court and the charge dropped.

Suit against defendant automobile dealer was started by Mrs. Manie in August, 1964, containing three counts; one of negligence; one for breach of contract for failure to furnish a valid plate, and one of misrepresentation based on the innocent, though mistaken, statement to the effect that the Cadillac was in proper condition to be driven on the highway.

An answer denying the charges was filed and the case tried before the court without a jury on June 18, 1965, resulting in a judgment of $500 in favor of Mrs. Manie for her expenses and also for humiliation, embarrassment and nervousness brought on by the previous events and by the harassment and teasing she was subjected to by her co-employees because of the ticket and subsequent legal proceedings.

The trial court, in a lengthy decision, based the award in part on the fact that the negligence count was proven because of the sole control of the license plates being in the hands of the defendant and that a proper handling of these plates would have precluded the incidents which took place. To illustrate the rationale of the trial court, we quote a portion of the opinion filed in this case:

'I am of the opinion that a cause of action has been stated on a negligence theory and we will proceed to set forth the theory upon which I recite this. I might hasten to add that it is pretty clear that also under a misrepresentation theory, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. As to negligence, I am of the opinion that the sole control of this license...