(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority’s interpretation of MCL 600.5856, and its decision to overrule the erroneous interpretation of this statute articulated in Buscaino v Rhodes, 385 Mich 474; 189 NW2d 202 (1971). However, in fairness to the plaintiff in the present case, I would give the decision prospective application only and allow the plaintiff to rely on Buscaino.
Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Weaver, J.