
    
      Request for Answer to Certified Question Granted December 29, 2006:
    
    
      In re Certified Question from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals District of Texas (Miller v Ford Motor Company),
    No. 131517.
   The motions to admit counsel pro hac vice and to file a surreply brief are granted. The question certified hy the Texas Court of Appeals (Fourteenth District) is considered, and the request to answer the question is granted. If the parties wish to file further briefs, they must be prepared in conformity with MCR 7.306 through 7.309. The Michigan Manufacturers Association, the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association, the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar, and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Cavanagh, J.

I would decline to answer the certified question.

Weaver, J.

(dissenting). I dissent from the order granting the request of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District, for an answer to the question, because I continue to question this Court’s constitutional authority to hear questions certified hy other courts. Justice Young and Justice Levin have also questioned this Court’s authority to answer certified questions. Therefore, I would decline to answer the question in this case. 
      
       See, e.g., In re Certified Questions (Melson v Prime Ins Syndicate, Inc), 472 Mich 1225 (2005) (Weaver, J., concurring); In re Certified Question (Wayne Co v Philip Morris Inc), 622 NW2d 518 (2001) (Weaver, J., dissenting); Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, C.J., dissenting); In re Certified Question (Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp v Continental Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109, 121 (2003) (Weaver, J., concurring).
     
      
       See In re Certified Question (Wayne Co v Philip Morris Inc), 622 NW2d 518 (2001) (Young, J., concurring).
     
      
       See In re Certified Question (Bankey v Storer Broadcasting Co), 432 Mich 438, 462-471 (1989) (separate opinion by Levin, J.).
     