McDaniel v. Crapo

• Decision Date: 09 January 1950
• Docket Number: No. 74,74
• Citation: 326 Mich. 555,40 N.W.2d 724
• Parties: McDANIEL et al. v. CRAPO et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 724

40 N.W.2d 724

326 Mich. 555

McDANIEL et al. v. CRAPO et al.

No. 74.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 9, 1950.

Paulson, Laing, Palmer & Tinker, Kalamazoo, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Alexander, Cholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, Grand Rapids, (Edward D. Wells, Grand Rapids, of counsel) for defendants and appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Plaintiffs Harry E. McDaniel and Carrol H. Hendricks, co-partners doing business as H & H Motor Sales, were insured by plaintiff Michigan Mutual Liability Company. By its insurance contract the company agreed to pay any liability imposed by law upon the partnership, arising out of the ownership, use and maintenance of a certain 1933 Chevrolet truck.

Hendricks permitted his 19 year old son, Robert, to use this truck to attend a ball game. During his trip Robert purchased some beer from defendants Crapo, doing business as Lone Star Tavern. He became intoxicated from drinking this beer, and while so driving struck another automobile. The other driver was injured and both vehicles were damaged. Resulting judgments against Hendricks, his son and the partnership were paid by Michigan Mutual. H & M Motor Sales and its assignees, Michigan Mutual, then brought this action against the Crapos and their surety, defendant Seaboard Surety Company. H & M Motor Sales sought a judgment for the damage to its truck and Michigan Mutual for the amount it paid in satisfying the judgments.

On motion of the defendants, the trial judge ordered a judgment of no cause of action entered on the pleadings.

The controlling statute, C.L.1948, § 436.22, Stat.Ann. § 18.993, reads in part as follows: 'Every wife, husband, child, parent, guardian or other persons who shall be injured in person or property, means of support or otherwise, by an intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving or furnishing to any such persons any intoxicating liquor, shall have a right of action in his or her name against the person who shall by such selling or giving of any such liquor have caused or contributed to the intoxication of said person or persons or who shall have caused or contributed to any such injury, and the principal and sureties to any bond given under this law shall be liable, severally and jointly, with the person or persons selling, giving or furnishing any spirituous, intoxicating or malt liquors as aforesaid, * * *.'

It is argued that Michigan Mutual does not a cause of action either as a 'person' within the meaning of this statute or by assignment from such a 'person'.

Both under the statute quoted and under a former similar statute, the words 'or other persons' have been given a broad interpretation. Flower v. Witkovsky, 69 Mich. 371, 37 N.W. 364, and Hylo v. Michigan Surety Co., 322 Mich. 568, 34 N.W.2d 443. Of course, the term is not all inclusive. The intoxicated person himself and those who contributed to his intoxication have no right of action. Brooks v. Cook, 44 Mich. 617, 7 N.W. 216, 38 Am.Rep. 282; Morton v. Roth, 189 Mich. 198, 155 N.W. 459; and Malone v. Lambrecht, 305 Mich. 58, 8 N.W.2d 910.

H & M Motor Sales sustained a direct injury under the...