Winiecki v. Wolf

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Winiecki v. Wolf, 383 N.W.2d 119, 147 Mich.App. 742 (Mich. App. 1986)
• Decision Date: 21 March 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 80207
• Parties: Diane A. WINIECKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert WOLF and Katherine Wolf, Defendants-Appellees, and Richard George, Defendant. 147 Mich.App. 742, 383 N.W.2d 119

Page 119

383 N.W.2d 119

Diane A. WINIECKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert WOLF and Katherine Wolf, Defendants-Appellees and Richard George, Defendant.

Docket No. 80207.

147 Mich.App. 742, 383 N.W.2d 119

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 26, 1985.

Decided Aug. 22, 1985.

Released for Publication March 21, 1986.

[147 MICHAPP 743] Marshal E. Hyman, Birmingham, for plaintiff-appellant.

Coticchio, Zotter & Sullivan, P.C. by W.J. Zotter, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.

Before MAHER, P.J., and BRONSON and WALSH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Macomb County Circuit Court granting defendants Wolfs' motion for summary judgment of dismissal, GCR 1963, 117.2(1).

Defendants Herbert and Katherine Wolf held a family reunion at their home in Tuscola County. Plaintiff is a cousin of Katherine Wolf. Another cousin, defendant Richard George, brought "land skis", two wooden planks with foot holes made from pieces of inner tube which he manufactured himself, to the reunion. A game was played with the land skis involving two teams which were to race down to a tree in the yard and back. According to defendants, everyone fell down when they played. The third time plaintiff fell, she sustained injuries to her hip and pelvis which may require [147 MICHAPP 744] long-term medical care. Plaintiff filed this action to recover damages for her injuries.

The trial court granted defendants' Wolfs' motion for summary judgment based solely on the ground that the recreational use statute, M.C.L. Sec. 300.201; M.S.A. Sec. 13.1485, precluded plaintiff's action against the defendant landowners. The issue on appeal is the correctness of the trial court's application of that statute to this case.

The recreational use statute provides:

"No cause of action shall arise for injuries to any person who is on the lands of another without paying to such other person a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of said premises unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee."

Plaintiff, citing various indications of legislative intent, argues that the statute was not intended to protect landowners from liability for injuries occurring in their backyards. Defendants Wolf own a tract of land measuring 7.8 acres, but the land ski game was allegedly played on the lawn behind the garage.

The duty of the courts is to interpret statutes as we find them. Melia v. Employment Security Comm., 346 Mich. 544, 561, 78 N.W.2d 273 (1956). A plain and unambiguous statute is to be applied, and not interpreted, since such a statute speaks for itself. Lansing v. Lansing Twp., 356 Mich. 641, 649, 97 N.W.2d 804 (1959). The courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the Legislature beyond the words employed in the act. Id. Ordinary words are to be given their plain and [147 MICHAPP 745] ordinary meaning. Carter Metropolitan Christian Methodist...