Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Solomon v. Shuell

Michigan Supreme Court
457 N.W.2d 669 (1990)


Facts

Police officers were arresting robbery suspects. The officers were not in uniform. Solomon (plaintiff), apparently thinking that the suspects needed help, came out of his house with a gun. He was shot and killed by one of the officers. Suit was brought on Solomon’s behalf. Shuell and the other defendants (defendants) pleaded comparative fault. A jury trial was held. The trial court instructed the jury that, if Solomon was in imminent and serious peril while going to the rescue of the suspects who were negligent, then Solomon could not be held contributorily negligent unless his rescue attempt was recklessly or rashly made. The standard jury instruction provides that one who attempts to rescue another who is in imminent and serious peril that is caused by another’s negligence is not contributorily negligent unless the rescue attempt was made recklessly or rashly. Solomon objected to the jury instruction. Solomon’s objection was based upon two arguments: (1) that the victim need not be in actual danger and (2) that the instruction should have stated “comparative fault” rather than “contributory negligence.” The trial court overruled the objection. The jury returned a verdict finding fault on behalf of all of the parties to the lawsuit, including Solomon. Solomon’s recovery was reduced according to the comparative fault statutes. Solomon appealed. The appeals court affirmed and held that the jury instruction was erroneous, but harmless because Solomon’s case was properly presented to the jury and the jury was properly instructed in comparative fault. Solomon appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Archer, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.