Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 2004No. Docket 123720, 123721Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWeaver, J.

i

I dissent from the majority’s holding that pursuant to MCL 600.6304, plaintiffs pretreatment negligence may be considered by the jury in assessing comparative negligence because it may have been a proximate cause of plaintiffs death. Ante at 546.1 I agree with Justice CAVANAGH’s concurring and dissenting opinion that it would be improper for the jury to consider plaintiffs pretreatment negligence to determine comparative negligence, ante at 597, and I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision on this point.

To determine the comparative negligence of the parties, MCL 600.6304 provides that…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Square D Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Mercer v. Vanderbilt University, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Wilkinson v. LeeMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Jensen v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy HospitalNebraska Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Nelson v. McCrearyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997

12 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