DocketNumber: Docket No. 1,527
Citation Numbers: 5 Mich. App. 124
Judges: Fitzgerald, Ilijs, Quinn
Filed Date: 11/9/1966
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/20/2022
The plaintiff, John Sobka, Jr., by his next friend, John Sobka, Sr., brought.this action for damages sustained when he was hit on the head with a basketball thrown by the defendant, Prank Prestí, a minor.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had entered into and received satisfaction from a consent judgment in an action involving other parties, but involving the same injuries. In the argument on the motion the following colloquy took place:
■ '“Mr. Jaques [attorney for plaintiff] : This is a consent judgment tantamount to a release and not a judicially derived and determined judgment..
“The Court: This was a judgment. What’s the difference between a consent judgment and a judicially determined judgment?
“Mr. Jaques: A'consent judgment does not have the same dignity as a judgment rendered by the court.
“The Court: You mean if it is a consent judgment, it’s not a judgment that he can use as a defense? I deny that theory.”
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
' On this appeal the parties have devoted considerable time to a discussion on whether a motion for
A consent judgment is essentially a settlement and it does not represent the full measure of satisfaction of a party’s cause of action. See Ortiz v. Travelers Insurance Company (1966), 2 Mich App 548, 555.
Judgment reversed. Costs to appellant.