Rockwell v. Hillcrest Country Club
Michigan Court of Appeals
181 N.W.2d 290 (1970)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
In July 1963, Ann and James Rockwell (plaintiffs) were watching a golf tournament at the Hillcrest Country Club, Inc. (Hillcrest) (defendant) with between 80 and 100 other spectators. The Rockwells and the other spectators were watching from a suspension bridge that was located on the Hillcrest golf course. A golf cart also was on the bridge. The bridge collapsed, causing Ann to fall 25 feet into the river below and sustain serious injuries. The bridge was built in 1953, at which time Woodrow Woody, Hillcrest’s president, was told that the bridge could safely support 25 people. Accordingly, Hillcrest initially posted a sign on the bridge warning that the bridge’s maximum capacity was 25 people. However, Woody admitted that no maximum-capacity sign was posted on the bridge on the day the bridge collapsed and that Woody did not instruct anyone to limit the number of people on the bridge that day. The Rockwells sued Hillcrest, alleging that the bridge collapsed because it was overloaded and that Hillcrest was negligent because Hillcrest failed to warn them about the bridge’s maximum weight capacity. The Rockwells did not provide expert testimony at trial, but the jury ruled for the Rockwells and awarded damages to both Ann and James. Hillcrest appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gillis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
