Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6K views

    Fisher V Lowe

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous PbHV4H
    1) A car driven by defendant Lowe struck and damaged the plaintiff's oak tree. The plaintiff sued Lowe, the car's owner Moffet, and their insurance company State Farm for damages. 2) The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants Lowe and Moffet, finding they had immunity from liability under Michigan's no-fault insurance act. 3) The trial court also refused to enter a default judgment against State Farm as the plaintiff did not properly serve the insurance company according to court rules, so the court did not have jurisdiction over State Farm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fisher V Lowe

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous PbHV4H
    6K views2 pages
    1) A car driven by defendant Lowe struck and damaged the plaintiff's oak tree. The plaintiff sued Lowe, the car's owner Moffet, and their insurance company State Farm for damages. 2) The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants Lowe and Moffet, finding they had immunity from liability under Michigan's no-fault insurance act. 3) The trial court also refused to enter a default judgment against State Farm as the plaintiff did not properly serve the insurance company according to court rules, so the court did not have jurisdiction over State Farm.

    Original Description:

    trees

    Original Title

    Fisher v Lowe

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A car driven by defendant Lowe struck and damaged the plaintiff's oak tree. The plaintiff sued Lowe, the car's owner Moffet, and their insurance company State Farm for damages. 2) The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants Lowe and Moffet, finding they had immunity from liability under Michigan's no-fault insurance act. 3) The trial court also refused to enter a default judgment against State Farm as the plaintiff did not properly serve the insurance company according to court rules, so the court did not have jurisdiction over State Farm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    6K views2 pages

    Fisher V Lowe

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous PbHV4H
    1) A car driven by defendant Lowe struck and damaged the plaintiff's oak tree. The plaintiff sued Lowe, the car's owner Moffet, and their insurance company State Farm for damages. 2) The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants Lowe and Moffet, finding they had immunity from liability under Michigan's no-fault insurance act. 3) The trial court also refused to enter a default judgment against State Farm as the plaintiff did not properly serve the insurance company according to court rules, so the court did not have jurisdiction over State Farm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Fisher v. Lowe, 122 Mich.App.

    418 (1983)
    333 N.W.2d 67

    122 Mich.App. 418


    Attorneys and Law Firms
    Court of Appeals of Michigan.
    *418 **67 William L. Fisher, Troy, in pro.
    William L. FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    per.
    v.
    Karen LOWE, Larry Moffet and State Romain, Donofrio & Kuck, P.C. by Ernst W.
    Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Kuck, Southfield, for defendants-appellees.
    Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BRONSON, P.J., and V.J. BRENNAN
    Docket No. 60732. and J.H. GILLIS, JJ.
    |
    Submitted Nov. 3, 1982. Opinion
    |
    Decided Jan. 10, 1983. J.H. GILLIS, Judge.
    |
    Released for Publications May 6, 1983. *419 We thought that we would never see

    Synopsis A suit to compensate a tree.


    A wayward Chevy struck a tree
    Whose owner sued defendants three.
    A suit whose claim in tort is prest
    He sued car's owner, driver too,
    Upon a mangled tree's behest;
    And insurer for what was due
    For his oak tree that now may bear
    A lasting need for tender care. A tree whose battered trunk was prest
    Against a Chevy's crumpled crest;
    The Oakland County Circuit Court,
    John N. O'Brien, J., set forth
    The judgment that defendants sought A tree that faces each new day
    And quickly an appeal was brought. With bark and limb in disarray;

    Court of Appeals, J.H. Gillis, J.,


    Gave thought and then had this to say: A tree that may forever bear
    1) There is no liability A lasting need for tender care.
    Since No-Fault grants immunity;
    2) No jurisdiction can be found
    Where process service is unsound; Flora lovers though we three,
    And thus the judgment, as it's termed, We must uphold the court's decree.
    Is due to be, and is,

    Affirmed. Affirmed. 1

    © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1


    Fisher v. Lowe, 122 Mich.App. 418 (1983)
    333 N.W.2d 67

    All Citations

    122 Mich.App. 418, 333 N.W.2d 67

    Footnotes

    1 Plaintiff commenced this action in tort against defendants Lowe and Moffet for
    damage to his “beautiful oak tree” caused when defendant Lowe struck it while
    operating defendant Moffet's automobile. The trial court granted summary judgment
    in favor of defendants pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1). In addition, the trial court
    denied plaintiff's request to enter a default judgment against the insurer of the
    automobile, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff
    appeals as of right.

    The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants
    Lowe and Moffet. Defendants were immune from tort liability for damage to the
    tree pursuant to § 3135 of the no-fault insurance act. M.C.L. § 500.3135; M.S.A.
    § 24.13135.

    The trial court did not err in refusing to enter a default judgment against State
    Farm. Since it is undisputed that plaintiff did not serve process upon State Farm
    in accordance with the court rules, the court did not obtain personal jurisdiction
    over the insurer. GCR 1963, 105.4.

    End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

    © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

    You might also like