ESTATE OF EDWARD CROCKER V MELVINDALE MOBILE HOME PARK INC (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF EDWARD CROCKER, by JAMIE LYNN SHELTON, Personal Representative, UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2018 Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellant, v MELVINDALE MOBILE HOME PARK, INC., No. 335887 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 15-011817-NO Defendant/CounterplaintiffAppellee. Before: JANSEN, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ. JANSEN, P.J. (concurring) I concur in the result only. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff’s testimony, offered to prove that Crocker gave notice of the dangerous condition, was not hearsay. The statements made by Crocker, the declarant, were not made while Crocker was under oath, and are offered to prove the truth of the matter, that defendant had notice of the dangerous condition or defect. MRE 801(c). However, I agree with the majority that plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to create a question of fact that the alleged defect was the result of defendant’s active negligence, and therefore, the notice requirement is nevertheless satisfied. I would reverse on that basis alone. /s/ Kathleen Jansen -1-
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.
