Alex v. Wildfong

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant Wildfong is not liable as an owner under the owner liability statute. MCL 257.401(1); MSA 9.2101(1).

It has been suggested that the statute cannot logically apply to a situation in which the owner of the vehicle is also the driver of the vehicle. I agree with the Court of Appeals majority in Haberl v Rose,1 that the plain language of the statute clearly indicates otherwise. As the Haberl panel noted:

Although the owner liability statute may have been enacted to create liability for a non-driving owner and prior cases have apparently…