Gerzeski v. Department of State Highways
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFitzgerald, J.
(for reversal). Justice Moody has aptly analyzed the semantic difficulties inherent in our nuisance case law. We agree with that analysis insofar as it explains the different methods of classifying nuisance for evidentiary and liability considerations. As an evidentiary question, whether or not the artificial pond in which the two children and the father of one of them drowned was a nuisance is a question of fact. The Court of Claims judge, sitting as trier of fact, determined that the pond was both an "attractive nuisance” and an "intentional nuisance” and awarded damages.
On the liability…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Thomas v. Department of State HighwaysMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Rosario v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
- Ashley v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Maki v. City of East TawasMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
- Beckwith v. Town of StratfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- Ross v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Peterman v. Department of Natural ResourcesMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Hadfield v. Oakland County Drain CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
- Li v. FeldtMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
- Landry v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.