Turri v. Bozek

I concur separately only because I must again question the logic of Sting v Davis, 384 Mich 608; 185 NW2d 360 (1971). *217See also Cobb v Harris, 47 Mich App 617; 209 NW2d 741 (1973).

We are bound to follow Sting v Davis, supra, which relied on GCR 1963, 607. However, the Sting rule does nothing more than permit past unrelated acts of negligence to be admitted to show a party’s negligence in the action being litigated. This result is obtained under the rationale of Sting that in some manner, prior traffic offenses bear upon credibility.

For a more apt critique of the Sting v Davis doctrine, see…