Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hill v. Sears, Roebuck and Co

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2012No. Docket 143329, 143348, and 143633Published

1DissentMarilyn Kelly, J.

This interlocutory appeal presents a narrow question. It is whether the two defendants who installed plaintiff Marcy Hill’s electric washer and dryer owed plaintiffs a legal duty in tort with respect to plaintiffs’ uncapped gas pipe. It is not about what duties were owed to plaintiffs by the *673former owners of the house. It is not about what duties were owed by the party who detached and removed the gas dryer. It is not about whether any of those parties or any defendant in this case ultimately should be held liable for the gas explosion that destroyed plaintiffs’ home.

The majority concludes…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Clark v. DalmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLCMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Fultz v. Union-Commerce AssociatesMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Schultz v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational IndustriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API