Legal Opinion
Vice v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided May 1, 1974No. Docket 16784PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDanhof, J.
In this negligence action, plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s entry, in favor of defendant, of judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, GCR 1963, 515.2.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict on defendant’s motion was appropriate only if the facts taken inferentially in favor of plaintiffs preclude judgment for plaintiffs as a matter of law. Huhtala v Anderson, 15 Mich App 693; 167 NW2d 352 (1969). Kroll v Katz, 374 Mich 364; 132 NW2d 27 (1965).
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs was as follows: Frost and ice had been allowed to accumulate on two packages of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kroll v. KatzMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Serinto v. Borman Food StoresMichigan Supreme Court · 1968
- Galloway v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1970
- Huhtala v. AndersonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- Ruemenapp v. National Food Stores, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jackson v. FoxMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Suci v. MirskyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Shackett v. SchwartzMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977
- Vice v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1974