Salas v. Clements

The issue in this case is whether plaintiffs, who claim they do not know the identity *106of an alleged intoxicated person who injured them, are barred from maintaining a cause of action under the Michigan dramshop act, because they did not "name and retain” the alleged intoxicated person as defendant as required by the "name and retain” amendment to the act.

We hold that the "name and retain” amendment only applies to those injured plaintiffs who know the identity of the intoxicated person. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remand to the trial court for…