GEORGE PROSSER V CONSUMERS POWER CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GEORGE PROSSER,
UNPUBLISHED
November 12, 1996
Plaintiff,
and
CLIFFORD J. ABBEL, DANIEL ACKER,
WALTER ADAMS, CHARLES DOUGLAS
ALLEN, and HOWARD ANDERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 174221
LC No. 93-067025-CZ
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and O’Connell and K.W. Schmidt,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking damages under various theories for injuries sustained as a
result of stray voltage allegedly caused by defendant’s failure to properly maintain the system that
delivered electricity to the various farms owned by plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendant’s motion
for dismissal for improper joinder. Plaintiffs-appellants appeal as of right. We affirm.
The trial court retained the first named plaintiff (i.e., George Prosser) and dropped the remaining
plaintiffs, rejecting their attempt to bring a single class action suit rather than separate individual suits
against defendant. In doing so, it gave the remaining plaintiffs the opportunity to re-file their individual
cases without prejudice and tolled the statute of limitations for fifty-six days. Such a procedure was in
accord with MCR 2.207.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Plaintiffs-appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in dropping them because their
claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and had a question of law or fact in common. In
addition, they argue that, even if the actions did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, it
would promote the convenient administration of justice to join all the plaintiffs in one action against
defendant. We disagree.
The claims of the various farmers in this case do not arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence because they do not arise from the identical events. Armco Steel v Dep’t of Treasury, 111
Mich App 426; 315 NW2d 158 (1981). The trial court correctly relied on Bajorek v Kurtz 335 Mich
58; 55 NW2d 727 (1952). See also Hardware Dealers Mut Ins Co v R. H. Hidey, Inc, 349 Mich
490; 490; 84 NW2d 795 (1957). Considering the variety of factors which could have contributed to
stray voltage, together with the range of voltage allegedly affecting the farms, jury confusion would result
if all two hundred plus plaintiffs presented their individual claims for resolution in a single class action
suit. Kubiak v Hurr, 143 Mich App 465; 372 NW2d 341 (1985).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kenneth W. Schmidt
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
