Jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A)(1); MCR 7.202(6); Whether the court has jurisdiction over a party’s claim of appeal even though the party, in agreeing to a stipulated order of dismissal, did not reserve the right to appeal an earlier order relating to another party; Conflict between Jaber v P & P Hospitality, LLC (Jaber I) & Sandoval v Farmers Ins Exch; Comparing Estate of Sliger v Bonno (Unpub), Deda v Winters (Unpub), Estate of Wells v State Farm Fire & Cas Co (Unpub), & Gallagher v Northland Farms LLC (Unpub); “Aggrieved party” requirement; MCR 7.203(A)(1); Whether plaintiff suffered “a concrete and particularized injury”; 1373 Moulin, LLC v Wolf; Alleged violation of the Dramshop Act (DSA); The DSA’s exclusive remedy provision; MCL 436.1801(9); Vicarious liability; Hamed v Wayne Cnty; Special conflict panel; MCR 7.215(J)

A special conflict panel of the court held that an appellant may raise issues arising out of an earlier order relating to one party, even if the appellant failed to reserve the right to appeal in a subsequent, stipulated order of dismissal as to another party. As such, the court had jurisdiction. And on the merits, plaintiff was correct that summary disposition was not proper under the DSA’s exclusive remedy provision. Plaintiff sued defendants-P & P and Randall (who she alleged was overserved at P & P’s establishment). The trial court granted P & P’s motion for summary disposition, ruling that the exclusive remedy provision of the DSA precluded, and the caselaw did not create, an independent cause of action for negligence under the facts. In a prior appeal, plaintiff challenged only the earlier grant of summary disposition in P & P’s favor, distinguishing this case from Sandoval, and urging the court to follow the dissent in Sandoval. The court explained that, but for Sandoval, it would conclude that it had jurisdiction over the appeal. It then dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was bound to do so by Sandoval. In the present appeal, the special conflict panel found that the panel in Jaber I correctly analyzed the issue, and followed that reasoning rather than that contained in Sandoval. “We agree that plaintiff was aggrieved by the order granting summary disposition to P & P. Plaintiff suffered ‘a concrete and particularized injury,’ by the trial court’s dismissal of P & P from this action.” And plaintiff “remained aggrieved when the court entered the final order dismissing Randall.” The court rejected “the notion that the failure to add reservation language to a stipulated order in these circumstances should operate as a trap for the unwary and bar appellate jurisdiction. After convening this special panel, we adopt the position advocated by the Jaber I Court and hold that an aggrieved party may raise on appeal issues arising from an earlier order relating to one party.” Turning to the merits of plaintiff’s appeal, the court found that the “trial court erred by determining that summary disposition was proper under the DSA’s exclusive remedy provision regarding plaintiff’s common-law negligence claims. P & P was not entitled to summary disposition on those claims based on the exclusive remedy provision of the DSA.” Reversed in part, and remanded.