Simpson v. Burton, 5
| Decision Date | 02 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,5 |
| Citation | 44 N.W.2d 178,328 Mich. 557 |
| Parties | SIMPSON v. BURTON. HOWARD v. BURTON. THOMAS v. BURTON. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
M. D. Smilay, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank Schwartz, Detroit, Arthur M. Lang, Detroit, of counsel, for appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
These three cases were consolidated for trial and on appeal. Verdict was had in favor of each plaintiff but differing in amount as to each plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Each plaintiff declared for false arrest and imprisonment based on false and unjust complaint, without just cause or provocation, made to the Detroit police department, of commission of a serious crime, the said arrests resulting in plaintiffs' detention overnight.
Defendant made general denial and did not in his answer assert the truth of the charge that plaintiffs had committed the designated serious offense.
The parties dispute as to matters which occurred on November 18, 1946, and those matters arose over the illness of a child of Lora Lee Thomas, then bookkeeper for defendant. Miss Thomas claimed that a preacher in Georgia was the father of her illegitimate child, and that while she was pregnant with said child, she came to Detroit and lived and kept defendant's books at the residence of defendant, who conducted some rental collections and maintained an office at his home. Miss Thomas' baby was born May 18, 1946. Miss Thomas (now the wife of defendant) claims that before November 18, 1946 she had called the attention of a doctor to the contents of her baby's Castoria container and that the doctor discovered Lysol in the baby's Castoria.
Miss Thomas further claims that on the afternoon in question (November 18, 1946) defendant Burton's little boy hastily called her to see what was wrong with the baby; that she found that the baby could hardly breathe; that Naomi Howard, one of the plaintiffs, was there and volunteered to get a doctor but that she, Miss Thomas, wanted her own doctor because of the discovery of Lysol previously and she was suspicious that an attempt at poisoning had again occurred.
Defendant concurs in the above statements of Miss Thomas and claims that the doctor called by Miss Thomas was not in and later some doctor took the child to a hospital where it appears that the child's stomach was pumped out, no poison found, and within a few hours the child died of bronchial pneumonia. All three plaintiffs were at the residence of defendant about the time the baby became ill. It is inferable that defendant had been informed of the episode about the Lysol in the baby's Castoria and knew of the fact that on the afternoon in question, disagreements had occurred between the mother and some of the plaintiffs about how the baby should be taken care of.
On November 18, 1946, defendant about 4:00 p.m. received a call to go to the house from the mother (Lora Lee) who was crying and saying that the baby was seriously ill. Defendant drove his car hastily to his house where the mother met him and told him further about the child and of occurrences just after the illness of the child was discovered and reported to her.
Defendant claims he rushed the mother to the hospital and that after she went upstairs at the hospital he waited about four or five hours and thinking the police might have taken the mother under arrest or for questioning, he went to the Canfield station, and was there informed by the police that they had a flash message to pick up the three plaintiffs. Defendant further claims that he was required by the police to go along with them to guide them to the several places where the three plaintiffs could be found and to identify them. Defendant also testified that he thought the plaintiffs were guilty of some offense respecting the illness of the child, but that he did not request the police to arrest the plaintiffs. The three plaintiffs were taken by the police to the police station, questioned and detained over night. They were released later for lack of evidence.
The three plaintiffs, respectively, gave testimony to the effect that defendant requested the officers to make the arrest. Officer Truax on direct examination testified that the defendant requested the arrest of the plaintiffs, but on cross-examination he stated that the defendant merely said he believed them guilty.
The defendant claims that the mother, Lora Lee Thomas, related to the officers the circumstances which indicated to her mind the guilt of the three plaintiffs; that he (defendant) merely pointed out the three plaintiffs as the persons who were already under suspicion as a result of the statements of Lora Lee Thomas; that he (defendant) justifiably acted as an ordinarily prudent person would act under similar circumstances, without falsehood and without malice, and that the officers acted upon their own judgment on the information given them by the mother, Lora Lee Thomas, and without any request or suggestion from defendant that the officers should take the three plaintiffs into custody.
Defendant in a request to charge urged his good faith as a complete defense. The court did not in his charge instruct the jury that if they found that the defendant did not request the arrest of plaintiffs and that defendant did not make any false statement nor give the police officers purposefully a false impression which an ordinarily prudent person would not give under the circumstances, defendant would not be liable. If the jury had failed to find by a preponderance of evidence that the police in making the arrest of plaintiffs did act upon false statements and impressions given them by defendant, defendant would not be liable. The court did not clearly so charge the jury. The following instruction by the court is deemed insufficient and incomplete: 'If Mr. Burton caused the police to arrest these people, the plaintiffs, and hold them in custody until they were discharged, he would be liable to the plaintiffs in damages for what they suffered at that time for that arrest and detention.'
There is nothing in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stevens, Docket No. 149380.
...particular features of a witness' testimony that might, in the eyes of the jury, tend to impeach [the witness].” Simpson v. Burton, 328 Mich. 557, 564, 44 N.W.2d 178 (1950). However, there is no clear line of precedent establishing the appropriate test in this state to determine whether a t......
-
People v. Swilley
...a right to question a witness for the purpose of shedding light on something unclear in the testimony"); Simpson v. Burton , 328 Mich. 557, 564, 44 N.W.2d 178 (1950) (noting that a trial judge may ask "appropriate questions to produce fuller and more exact testimony"). But it is not the rol......
-
Lewis v. Farmer Jack Div., Inc.
...the arrest without legal justification. See Howard v. Burton, 338 Mich. 178, 183-184, 61 N.W.2d 77 (1953); Simpson v. Burton, 328 Mich. 557, 561-562, 44 N.W.2d 178 (1950). See also 32 Am.Jur.2d, False Imprisonment, Sec. 45, p. 104. Therefore, the legality of the arrest is not necessarily a ......
-
People v. Miller
...under which such reports are usually made, the possibility of police reports so qualifying is unlikely. 2 See also Simpson v. Burton, 328 Mich. 557, 44 N.W.2d 178 (1950). I do not agree that the preliminary complaint report was properly qualified in this case as a business record under the ......