| Browse the Best of RHF: "'True' Stories" |

This is a case of law found in a West Law digest. This is an actual case heard by the Michigan court of appeals (Fisher v. Low, 333 N.W.2d 67) that was recently shown to me by somebody at school (after a long time being a software engineer I started evening law school). I thought it was funny...you be the judge.

A wayward Chevy struck a tree
whose owner sued defendants three.
He sued car's owner, driver too,
and insurer for what was his due.
For his oak tree that now may bear
a lasting need for tender care.
the Oakland County Circuit court,
John O' Brian, J., set forth
the judgment the defendants sought
and quickly an appeal was brought.

Court of appeals, J.H.Gillis, J.
Gave thought to this and had this to say:
1) There is no liability
since no-fault grants immunity;
2) No jurisdiction can be found
where process service is unsound;
and thus the judgment, as it's termed
is due to be and is
Affirmed.

Reason summaries (Squibbs)
1.
Defendant's Chevy struck a tree-
there was no liability;
the No-Fault Act comes into play
as owner and the driver say.
barred by the act's immunity
no suit in tort will aid the tree.
Although the oak's in disarray
No court can make defendants pay.

2.
No jurisdiction could be found
where process service was unsound;
In personam jurisdiction
was not even legal fiction.
Where plaintiff failed to well comply
with rules of court that did apply.

Summary of appeal court's opinion
J.H. Gillis, Judge
We thought that we would never see
a suit to compensate a tree.
A suit whose claim in tort is prest
upon a mangled tree's behest.
A tree whose battered trunk was prest
against a Chevy's crumpled crest.
A tree that faces each new day
with bark and limb in disarray.
A tree that may forever bear
a lasting need for tender care.
Flora lovers though we three,
we must uphold the court's decree.

Affirmed.

| Browse the Best of RHF: "'True' Stories" |