From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Sears Roebuck Company

Supreme Court of Michigan
Oct 26, 2011
490 Mich. 896 (Mich. 2011)

Opinion

Nos. 143329 143348 143633.COA No. 295071.

2011-10-26

Marcy HILL, Patricia Hill, and Christopher Hill, Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Sears Logistic Services, Inc., Exel Direct, Inc. and Merchant Delivery, Inc., Defendants–Appellees,andMark Pritchard and Timothy Dameron, Defendants–Appellants.andCharles R. Lindsey, Oralia J. Lindsey, and Albert Kimpe, Defendants.Marcy Hill, Patricia Hill, and Christopher Hill, Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.Sears Roebuck & Company, Sears Logistic Services, Inc., Mark Pritchard, and Timothy Dameron, Defendants–Appellees,andExel Direct, Inc. and Merchant Delivery, Inc., Defendants–Appellants,andCharles R. Lindsey, Oralia J. Lindsey, and Albert Kimpe, Defendants.Marcy Hill, Patricia Hill, and Christopher Hill, Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.Sears Roebuck & Company and Sears Logistic Services, Inc., Defendants–Appellants,andExel Direct, Inc., Merchant Delivery, Inc., Mark Pritchard, and Timothy Dameron, Defendants–Appellees,andCharles R. Lindsey, Oralia J. Lindsey, and Albert Kimpe, Defendants.


Order

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the May 24, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall include among the issues addressed: (1) whether the defendant installers of the electrical appliance, Mark Pritchard and Timothy Dameron, had a duty to the plaintiffs with respect to the uncapped gas line in their home that was separate and distinct from their contractual duty to properly and safely install the electrical appliance; (2) whether these defendant installers created a new dangerous condition with respect to the uncapped gas line, or made an existing dangerous condition more hazardous; and (3) whether defendants-appellants Sears Roebuck & Company, Sears Logistic Services, Inc., Exel Direct, Inc., and Merchant Delivery, Inc., breached any duty owed to the plaintiffs. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.


Summaries of

Hill v. Sears Roebuck Company

Supreme Court of Michigan
Oct 26, 2011
490 Mich. 896 (Mich. 2011)
Case details for

Hill v. Sears Roebuck Company

Case Details

Full title:MARCY HILL, PATRICIA HILL, and CHRISTOPHER HILL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Oct 26, 2011

Citations

490 Mich. 896 (Mich. 2011)
804 N.W.2d 553

Citing Cases

Hill v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

“Plaintiffs” refers to Marcy Hill and her children, Patricia and Christopher Hill.Hill v. Sears Roebuck &…