Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 2008No. Docket Nos. 129282, 132849. Calendar Nos. 10, 11Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.

These two cases require us to decide two issues. The first concerns the spouse or parent of an individual who sustains bodily injury in a motor vehicle collision. The issue is whether that person can recover damages from a governmental agency for loss of consortium under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity.1 The majority decides that a person cannot recover these damages. I disagree. When a loss of consortium claim arises directly out of bodily injury suffered in a collision, I would hold that such damages are recoverable. Accordingly, I dissent from the part of the majority…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. StephanMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  2. McAuley v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Brown v. Mayor of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Endykiewicz v. State Highway CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1982

5 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