Pesola v. Pawlowski

Plaintiff brought this action for damages under the dramshop act (MCLA 436.22; MSA 18.993). At the close of the plaintiffs proofs, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict; plaintiff appeals, and first argues that the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion for a directed verdict.

Since, in reviewing this question we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Shandor v Lischer, 349 Mich 556 [1957]), we have essentially borrowed the following statement of facts from appellant’s brief:

The plaintiff’s testimony was that on Sunday,…