Michigan High Court to Address Scope of “Gross Negligence” Exception to Governmental Immunity

In an order issued on December 23, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court has granted oral argument to consider the state’s application in this wrongful death case.  (Estate of Beals.Order).

The plaintiff is the estate of an individual who was a student at a state technical college that provided vocational and technical training to individuals with disabilities.  The decedent was a student at the college, who had been diagnosed with autism and learning disabilities.

Despite his disabilities, the decedent was an accomplished swimmer.  During an open swim time at the college’s pool, the decedent swam to the deep end of the pool, submerged, and never resurfaced, until he was brought to the surface by other students who noticed his plight.  The pool’s student lifeguard, who was described by witnesses as being distracted and inattentive around the time of the incident, was unable to resuscitate the decedent.  He was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.  The cause of death was accidental drowning.

The estate sued the state of Michigan, the college, and the lifeguard who was on duty at the time of the accident.  The government moved for summary disposition, arguing that the lifeguard’s conduct did not arise to “gross negligence” within the meaning of Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 691.1407 the “gross negligence” exception to immunity, and even if his conduct did satisfy the statutory definition, it was not, as is required  by the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1407(2)(c) “the proximate cause” of the decedent’s accident and death.  The trial court denied the government’s summary motion to dismiss the case.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2 to 1 unpublished opinion (Judges Meter and Shapiro in the majority; Judge O’Connell, dissenting).  Estate of Beals v. State of Michigan, et al.

The central issue in the case was whether the lifeguard’s conduct was “the proximate cause of the injury or damage.” MCL 691.1407(2)(c) (emphasis added). To apply the statute, the Courts have held it must be determined whether a reasonable person could find that the governmental defendant’s conduct or actions were “the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause” of the injury alleged.  Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 462 (2000).

The factual dispute centered on whether the lifeguard’s conduct or actions, or lack of action was, in the language of the jurisprudence interpreting MCL 691.1407(2)(c) “the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause of” the decedent’s death.

The majority opinion reasons that reasonable minds could disagree on whether the lifeguard’s action or inaction was the proximate cause.  However, the dissenting judge, Judge O’Connell reasoned that since there was a chain of events that lead to the decedent’s death, most of which were caused by the decedent’s participating in the open swim, swimming to the deep end of the pool, and going under, it was impossible to conclude that the lifeguard’s conduct alone was “the most direct and immediate cause”.  Since a “chain of events” cannot serve as a substitute for the statutory standard, it could not be the source of tort liability against a governmental employee under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (the GTLA).

The Supreme Court’s order requests the parties to brief the issue simply as whether the lifeguard’s  “alleged failure to act was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death. MCL 691.1407(2)(c)” of the GTLA.

It should be noted that at least until now the Supreme Court has applied a narrow construction to the statutory exceptions to the government’s suit immunity.  That rule applies with equal force to the “statutory” gross negligence standard, which, unlike the common-law articulation, includes the requirements enunciated in the statutory definition found in MCL 691.1407(2)(c).  With the recent liberalization of the interpretive principles and the Court’s apparent willingness to look to common law rules that predated the passage of the GTLA, it will be interesting to see how the litigants and the Court address this significant case.

This case will also likely garner significant attention because related inferior appellate court cases have recently addressed the scope of the “gross negligence” exception to governmental immunity in actions against individual governmental actors.  Seethe following link, in which I discuss these cases:

Gross Negligence Exception to Immunity Under Attack in Cases Against “Emergency First Responders”

I have been directly involved in at least four cases as the government’s appellate attorney (Odom v. Wayne County, Hamed v. Wayne County, Atkins v. SMART Bus, and the Court of Appeals opinions in Gentry v. Wayne County and Truett v. Wayne County), and tangentially involved writing as amicus curiae in many others, which have demonstrated and continued the trend the government and its individual actors should be protected to a great degree to allow the smooth and uninterrupted operation of government affairs in day-to-day life.  I continue to believe that unnecessary litigation and large damages claims are inconsistent with this.  The Michigan Supreme Court’s decisions, which I secured in Odom, Hamed, and Atkins, as well as the Court of Appeals opinions in Gentry and Truett, were instrumental in advancing this overarching theme that should be the focus of those defending actions against the government.

If anyone has questions about any of these opinions, please call the Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker.

Effective appellate representation demands different skills than those required by litigation attorneys.  Mr. Tucker is adept at analyzing the intricacies of each case from an objective and critical perspective.  From reviewing and preparing the lower court record, identifying appealable errors, and developing a strategy to raise issues that will be addressed by appellate courts, Mr. Tucker is capable of handling the most complex appeals from the application stage to oral advocacy before the highest courts.

Mr. Tucker’s research abilities and knowledge of current issues in nearly all major subject-matter areas of the law provides his clients with efficient and immediate assistance with complex and high-exposure cases.

Mr. Tucker is experienced at navigating through all appellate courts to shepherd the appeal in the most expeditious fashion possible so that it can be reviewed and quickly ruled upon.

During the past decade, Mr. Tucker has been responsible for several seminal decisions in workers’ compensation, governmental immunity, employment and labor law, civil rights law and insurance coverage.

Because of his specialized knowledge and focus on appellate law and his recognized expertise, Mr. Tucker has been asked to participate as amicus curiae writing briefs for the Supreme Court or as special counsel to other governmental entities in some of the most significant cases in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Mr. Tucker presented direct representation to the defendants and prosecuted the entire appeal, including all appellate briefings and oral arguments before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in the following cases, among others:

• Estate of Truett v. Wayne County, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, dated May 6, 2014 (Docket No. 313638), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker for Wayne County
• Atkins v. SMART, 492 Mich. 707 (August 20, 2012), application granted, and briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Supreme Court
• Gentry v. Wayne County Deputy Sheriff Daniel Carmona, unpublished opinion of hte Michigan Court of Appeals, dated October 11, 2011 (Docket No. 296580), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Court of Appeals
• Hamed v. Wayne County, 490 Mich. 1 (July 29, 2011), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
• Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (December 30, 2008), application for leave to appeal granted, and briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Supreme Court

Mr. Tucker has also served as special appellate counsel for governmental entities and organizations in writing amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in the following cases, among others:

• Hannay v MDOT, ___ Mich. ___ (December 19, 2014), application granted, amicus curiae filed for Michigan Townships Association, Macomb County, Oakland County and Wayne County, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• Yono v. MDOT, ___ Mich ___ (2014), oral argument on application granted, amicus curiae for Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County filed by Carson J. Tucker in support of the state’s application
• Ashley, LLC v Pittsfield Twp., 494 Mich 875 (2013), application granted, for Pittsfield Township by Carson J. Tucker
• Hagerty v. Manistee County Road Commission, 493 Mich 933 (2013), amicus curiae for Michigan Municipal League, et al., by Carson J. Tucker

Mr. Tucker can be reached at +17342183605.

 

“Gross Negligence” Exception to Governmental Immunity Under Attack in Cases Against First Responders / Law Enforcement Officers

The Court of Appeals has released two cases that appear to undermine the meaning of the “statutory” “gross negligence” exception, MCL 691.1407(2) under Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The GTLA, MCL 691.1401 et seq., provides immunity for law enforcement officers and other individual governmental employees engaged in the discharge of a governmental function and while performing duties authorized by their position.  The only exceptions to an individual governmental employee’s immunity are the statutory “gross negligence” exception and the “bad faith / intentional tort” exception, the latter of which was articulated by the Michigan Supreme Court in the seminal case of Odom v. Deputy Christine Kelly and Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (2008), a case I successfully briefed and argued in the Supreme Court on behalf of Wayne County.

MCL 691.1407(2) provides that a governmental agency’s employee is “immune from tort liability” caused by the employee “while in the course of employment” if all of the following are true: (1) the employee is acting, or reasonably believes he or she is acting, within the scope of his or her authority; (2) the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function; and (3) the employee’s conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage. MCL 691.1407(2).

The phrase “gross negligence” in the GTLA is a “statutory standard”, and thus is defined and applied by reference to the statute and the case law interpreting it.  See Costa v. Community Emergency Medical Services, Inc., 475 Mich. 403, 411-412 (2006), see also Odom, supra at 470.  Thus, common-law definitions and applications of “gross negligence” are not binding.

For example, an important product of limiting the standard by statute is exemplified in the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439 (2000), which ruled, inter alia, that the statute required the employee’s conduct to be “the proximate cause” of the harm.  Id. at 445-446.  This means liability against the governmental employee, in that case law enforcement officers, can be imposed under the gross negligence exception only where the employee’s conduct is “the one, most immediate, efficient, and direct cause…of injur[y]….”  Id.  This is a crucial principle as in many cases the actions and reactions of governmental employees (especially, as in these cases, first responders and law enforcement officers) often occurs as the result of someone else’s negligent or criminal actions.  Since the statute requires to prove “gross negligence” against the employee, it must be shown the employee’s conduct was the proximate cause, i.e., the most immediate, efficient, or direct cause of the injuries complained of, liability can often be avoided by demonstrating the negligence of another, or even a break in the direct causal chain between the officer’s alleged “gross negligence” and the harm complained of.

The statute further defines “gross negligence” as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” MCL 691.1407(7)(a) .

Importantly, although this is a substantive legal issue that has not been definitively resolved, the burden of pleading a cause of action in avoidance of governmental immunity rests on the claimant. Compare Mack v. City of Detroit 467 Mich. 186 (2002), with Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (2008).  The principle established in Mack is based on the jurisdictional principle of governmental immunity adhered to in Michigan.  Therefore, “immunity” is an inherent characteristic of government and cannot be waived without explicit consent of the Legislature.  Thus, merely pleading facts in avoidance of immunity, without more, is insufficient to invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the courts over the cause of action.

Basically, allegations in a complaint should be supported by undisputed facts in order to lift the veil of immunity protecting the government.  However, this is not how the courts have interpreted and applied the principle of governmental immunity.  In Odom, supra, the Court made a distinction between actions brought against governmental entities, and actions brought against individual governmental employees.  In the latter case, for some unexplained reason, the Court noted that plaintiff’s did not bear the burden of pleading and proving an action in avoidance of immunity.  The ruling was not dispositive in the case, and thus, the case itself does not serve as precedent for the principle stated.

In these two recent cases, however, this application led the courts to find “questions of fact” based on alleged disputed evidence, and the allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint alone, which were not necessarily supported by demonstrations of undisputed fact.

The facts of these two cases are remarkable.  In Estate of Young v. Pierce, the defendant, an emergency “first responder” employed by Montcalm County was responding to an emergency dispatch when he ran through a stop sign and crossed into an intersection.  His vehicle struck another vehicle killing the two occupants.  The Court of Appeals notes it was undisputed that the defendant ran through the stop sign, and that traffic on the cross road had the right of way. According to witnesses, the defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed (estimated at 80 mph) approximately 30 seconds before he arrived at the intersection; he had not activated his emergency lights or sirens, and he did not stop or slow down at the intersection.  The defendant claimed he did slow down and look before entering the intersection.  He also testified that he had activated his siren.

The trial court denied summary disposition on governmental immunity grounds per MCR 2.116(C)(7).  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court noted there were “disputed factual” questions that could not be resolved without referring those questions to the scrutiny of a trial by jury.  Principally, the Court of Appeals panel noted the question of whether the defendant’s conduct rose to the statutory standard of “gross negligence” sufficient to withstand the governmental immunity defense was a question of fact to be resolved by the jury.

In Howard v. Pena, the defendant, a state trooper got lost while driving to a scheduled event for which he was assigned to provide law enforcement assistance.  He made a u-turn on a one-way street and crashed head-on into the plaintiff’s vehicle.  The plaintiff suffered serious injuries.  Testimony and other evidence presented demonstrated that there were signs indicating that the street was one-way.  The state trooper testified he was aware of the traffic regulations, but did not know that he was turning the wrong way onto a one-way road.

On reconsideration of an earlier dismissal order, the trial court ruled that because defendant had admitted to ignoring certain traffic control devices in violation of the law there was a question of fact as to whether his conduct rose to the level of gross negligence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court applied the pleading rule that all allegations favored plaintiff, and thus, a question of fact remained as to whether the defendant’s conduct was “grossly negligent”.

These two cases highlight separate extant problems in the application by lower appellate courts of the statutory “gross negligence” standard.  In Estate of Young, supra, the Court allowed unsupported factual allegations to substitute for the type of supported factual allegations that should be required to prove in avoidance of immunity.  The Court of Appeals has stated, and the Supreme Court has agreed on more than one occasion, that governmental immunity means more than immunity from liability; it is supposed to provide immunity from litigation, i.e., the costs and expenditure of time and resources the government must commit to defend lawsuits based only on the unsupported allegations in a complaint.  If immunity from litigation can be avoided simply by factual allegations and unsupported claims then the purpose of immunity is irrelevant.  While the factual dispute in this case is whether and to what extent the defendant heeded the stop sign and provided proper warning, there was no question that he was responding to an emergency.  And, despite how the lower appellate courts have applied “gross negligence”, it is a standard that requires nearly culpable conduct, recklessness, and a demonstration of lack of care or compassion about the consequences of one’s conduct.  It is a standard that should be difficult to prove.

In Howard, the issue is a bit more subtle.  The lower court, and apparently, the Court of Appeals, latched on to the fact that the state trooper knew and disregarded the basic rules of traffic regulation.  But the panel does not demonstrate that there were factual disputes about the defendant’s state of mind.  Thus, although the trooper was not responding to an emergency and may have had more time to heed the conditions of traffic and his whereabouts, it seems the panel substitutes a disregard for the traffic regulations, for the statutory standard which requires a showing of a mental state rising to the level of reckless disregard and lack of concern about whether injury results in engagement of the conduct at issue.  The analysis in the latter case may have been sound if there was direct evidence that the trooper was intentionally turning the wrong way to get to the location he was supposed to be at on time.  In other words, if there was proof that the trooper knew he was turning the wrong way, and did so anyway because it was a short cut to the venue.  That seems to be the type of proof required by the statute as a reckless disregard and a willful ignorance of the potential consequences.

These two cases present difficult factual circumstances.  However, the rulings of law appear to allow unwarranted expansion of the “gross negligence” exception.  It will be interesting to see whether further appellate review will occur.

Carson J. Tucker has participated in and argued some of the most significant governmental immunity cases in Michigan during the past decade.

Mr. Tucker presented direct representation to the governmental defendants and prosecuted the entire appeal, including all appellate briefings and oral arguments before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in the following cases:

• Estate of Truett v. Wayne County, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, dated May 6, 2014 (Docket No. 313638), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker for Wayne County
• Atkins v. SMART, 492 Mich. 707 (August 20, 2012), application granted, and briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Supreme Court
• Gentry v. Wayne County Deputy Sheriff Daniel Carmona, unpublished opinion of hte Michigan Court of Appeals, dated October 11, 2011 (Docket No. 296580), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Court of Appeals
• Hamed v. Wayne County, 490 Mich. 1 (July 29, 2011), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
• Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (December 30, 2008), application for leave to appeal granted, and briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Supreme Court

In addition, Mr. Tucker has provided direct support to governmental entities in filing “friend of the court”, i.e., amicus curiae briefs in support of the governmental defendants in the following cases:

• Yono v. MDOT, ___ Mich. App. ___ (2014), after remand order, amicus curiae brief filed for Michigan Municipal League and Michigan Townships Association on June 16, 2014, after remand by Carson J. Tucker
• State Farm v. MMRMA, amicus curiae in Supreme Court for Oakland County, Wayne County, Macomb County, and Wayne County in support of MMRMA’s application, by Carson J. Tucker
• Hannay v MDOT, ___ Mich ___ (2014), application granted and consolidated with Hunter v. Sisco, amicus curiae filed for Michigan Townships Association, Macomb County, Oakland County and Wayne County, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• Hagerty v Manistee, 493 Mich 933 (2013), amicus curiae in Michigan Supreme Court for Michigan Municipal League, et al., by Carson J. Tucker

Effective appellate representation demands different skills than those required by litigation attorneys.  Appellate attorneys are adept at analyzing the intricacies of each case from an objective and critical perspective.  From reviewing and preparing the lower court record, identifying errors for appeal, and developing a strategy to raise those issues that will be addressed by appellate courts, appellate attorneys are capable of handling the most complex appeals from the application stage to oral advocacy before the highest courts.  Our research abilities and knowledge of current issues in nearly all major subject-matter areas of the law provide our clients with efficient and immediate assistance with complex and high-exposure cases.

We are also experienced at navigating through all appellate courts to shepherd the appeal in the most expeditious fashion possible so that it can be reviewed and quickly ruled upon.

Below are some of the recent significant cases prosecuted by the Appeals and Legal Research Group.

• Omian v. Chrysler, LLC, Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 310743, remanded by Supreme Court as on leave granted, Supreme Court No. 146908, oral argument presented July 16, 2014 by Carson J. Tucker for Chrsyler, LLC
• Moore v. Nolff’s Construction and Travelers Ins., Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 313478 and 313440 (consolidated), application and cross-application granted and oral argument in Court of Appeals presented July 2014 by Carson J. Tucker for Nolff’s Construction and Travelers Insurance
• Arbuckle v. GM, Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 310611, oral argument in Court of Appeals presented May 2014 by Carson J. Tucker for GM
• Yono v. MDOT, ___ Mich. App. ___ (201_), amicus curiae brief filed for Michigan Municipal League and Michigan Townships Association on June 16, 2014, after remand by Carson J. Tucker
• Estate of Truett v. Wayne County, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, dated May 6, 2014 (Docket No. 313638), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker for Wayne County
• Omian v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 495 Mich. 859 (2013), application filed by Carson J. Tucker, Supreme Court remand to Court of Appeals on leave granted, oral argument to be held in July 2014
• Ghanam v. John Does, 303 Mich. App. 522 (2013), application to appeal filed in Supreme Court by Carson J. Tucker
• State Farm v. MMRMA, ___ Mich App ___ (2013), amicus curiae for Oakland County in support of MMRMA application, by Carson J. Tucker
• Hannay v MDOT, ___ Mich ___ 201_), application granted, amicus curiae filed for Michigan Townships Association, Macomb County, Oakland County and Wayne County, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• Yono v. MDOT, ___ Mich ___ (201_), oral argument on application granted, amicus curiae for Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County filed by Carson J. Tucker in support of the state’s application
• Huddleston v. Trinity Health, et al., 495 Mich. 976 (2014), oral argument on application granted, amicus curiae with Lawrence Garcia, Esq., for MDTC
• Ashley, LLC v Pittsfield Twp., 494 Mich 875 (2013), application granted, for Pittsfield Township by Carson J. Tucker (resolved by settlement)
• Bailey v. Schaaf, ___ Mich ___ (2013), amicus curiae for MDTC by Carson J. Tucker
• Atkins v. SMART, 492 Mich 707 (2012), oral argument on application, Court of Appeals case reversed by opinion, Carson J. Tucker
• Hagerty v Manistee, 493 Mich 933 (2013), amicus curiae for Michigan Municipal League, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• McMurtrie v Eaton Corp, 490 Mich 976 (2011)
• Findley v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 490 Mich 928 (2011)
• Brewer v. AD.Transport Express, Inc, 486 Mich 50 (2010)
• Stokes v Chrysler, 481 Mich 266 (2008)
• Brackett v Focus Hope, Inc, 482 Mich 269 (2008)
• Rakestraw v Gen Dynamics, 469 Mich 220 (2003)

Bus Passenger’s Cause of Action Dismissed Against Transportation Commission – Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court’s Judgment for Transportation Commission

In Palmer v. Blue Water Area Transportation Commission, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment of no cause of action against a governmental entity (here a transportation commission) in a suit by a bus passenger alleging negligence and gross negligence against the governmental entity and its employee, respectively.

Plaintiff fell while boarding the bus.  She attributed the fall to the driver’s actions, claiming the driver allowed the bus to lurch or move forward as she was boarding.  Plaintiff’s story was inconsistent.  In various contexts, she gave varying versions of what happened prior to her fall.  The bus driver testified the bus was in park and she had her foot on the brake while plaintiff boarded the bus and did not move the bus prior to plaintiff’s fall.

Since defendant was a governmental entity, the plaintiff claimed negligent operation of a motor vehicle, under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1405); gross negligence against the driver, claiming that such negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries (MCL 691.1407); and that she suffered a “threshold injury” (serious impairment of a bodily function) under MCL 500.3135 of the No-Fault Act.

Primarily finding plaintiff’s testimony to be inconsistent and therefore not credible, the trial court judge granted the governmental entity’s motion for judgment finding no cause of action existed.

The Court of Appeals affirms in this opinion.  The opinion is rather unremarkable as a whole, but it does contain a convenient synopsis of the standards applicable to bring a cause of action under the motor vehicle exception and the gross negligence exception to governmental immunity.  It also points out that to prove a threshold injury for (economic or non-economic) damages under the No-Fault Act, the plaintiff must first establish the proper standards of care and that such standards were breached by the governmental entity.

This is significant, because it establishes the fundamental principle that before a plaintiff can seek any ordinary tort damages arising out of the alleged operation of a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act in an action against a governmental entity, he or she must first establish the existence of a valid statutory exception to immunity.

The correlation between the Governmental Tort Liability Act (the GTLA), and, specifically, the “motor vehicle” exception under MCL 691.1405, and the No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3100 et seq. provides some interesting issues, many of which are either making their way up through the appellate courts, or residing on applications or grants thereof in the Supreme Court of Michigan.

For example, the Supreme Court has granted to consider the extent of “economic damages” available to a plaintiff injured in an automobile accident with a government vehicle in the case of Hannay v. MDOT, Supreme Court Case No. 146763 (see the Court’s grant order here: hannay-v-mdot).  This is a significant case as the Court is set to consider the extent and scope of damages available in actions against the government within the meaning of MCL 691.1405, which allows only for “bodily injury and property damage” in actions for negligent operation of a motor vehicle.  I previously wrote a blog explaining the details of this case, which you can read here:  Supreme Court to Consider Scope of Damages Available for “Bodily Injury” Under the Motor Vehicle Exception to Governmental Immunity.  I am also writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of several entities in this case.

In Hunter v. Sisco, ___ Mich. App. ___ (2013), which was cited by the Court of Appeals panel in this case, cross applications have been filed.  Underlying issues in that case include the extent of “noneconomic” damages available to plaintiffs claiming negligent operation of a motor vehicle under MCL 691.1405.  I wrote about that case in an earlier blog which you can read here:  Supreme Court Asked to Consider Whether “Non-Economic Damages” Are Available to Plaintiffs in Actions Against the Government Under the Motor Vehicle Exception to Governmental Immunity.  The disposition of Hannay could very well impact the outcome of this case.

It appears the answer to the latter question, to wit, whether non-economic damages are available under the motor vehicle exception, is considered by the Court of Appeals to be “No”.  Just yesterday, I wrote about a case in which the Court of Appeals, again citing Hunter, held non-economic, pain and suffering damages were not available to a plaintiff in a wrongful death action against the government filed, in part, under the motor vehicle exception.  The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal in that case.  See my post here:  Supreme Court Denies Application to Reconsider Court of Appeals Decision Affirming Non-Economic Damages Are Not Available Against the Government Under the Motor Vehicle Exception.

The issue remains extant because the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the “scope and extent” of the damages that are available to an individual plaintiff in actions against the government under the motor vehicle exception.  The closest case, which is cited in the Supreme Court’s grant order in the Hannay case, is Weschler v. Mecosta County Rd. Comm’n, 480 Mich. 75 (2008), which defined the term “bodily injury” under the GTLA’s motor vehicle exception as “physical or corporeal injury to the body”. Weschler however addressed “loss of consortium” damages claimed by the plaintiff’s spouse and held that such claims were not recoverable under the “motor vehicle exception”.  Id.  This did not answer the question of the extent and scope of damages available directly to the plaintiff claiming injury to his or her own person under the exception.

Feel free to call Carson J. Tucker, Chair of the Appeals and Legal Research Group at Lacey & Jones, LLP at (248) 283-0763 if you have any questions about any of these cases.

Throughout its storied history, Lacey & Jones has distinguished itself from other law firms by maintaining a robust Appeals and Legal Research Group.  Effective appellate representation demands different skills than those required by litigation attorneys.  Our appellate attorneys are adept at analyzing the intricacies of each case from an objective and critical perspective.  From reviewing and preparing the lower court record, identifying appealable errors, and developing a strategy to raise issues that will be addressed by appellate courts, our seasoned appellate team is capable of handling the most complex appeals from the application stage to oral advocacy before the highest courts.  Our research abilities and knowledge of current issues in nearly all major subject-matter areas of the law provide our clients with efficient and immediate assistance with complex and high-exposure cases.   We are experienced at navigating through the Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to shepherd the appeal in the most expeditious fashion possible so that it can be reviewed and quickly ruled upon.  During the last three decades alone, the Appeals and Legal Research Group at Lacey & Jones has been responsible for over 150 published decisions in the Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, including seminal decisions in workers’ compensation, governmental immunity, employment and labor law, civil rights law and insurance coverage.  Because of its specialized knowledge and focus on appellate law and its recognized expertise, the Appeals and Legal Research Group at Lacey & Jones has been asked to participate as amicus curiae writing briefs for the Supreme Court or as special counsel to the Michigan Attorney General and other governmental entities in some of the most significant cases in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.   Below are some of the recent significant cases in which Lacey & Jones, LLP’s Appeals and Legal Research Group has participated.

• State Farm v. MMRMA, ___ Mich App ___ (2013), amicus curiae for Oakland County in support of MMRMA application, by Carson J. Tucker
• Hannay v MDOT, ___ Mich ___ 201_), application granted, amicus curiae to be filed for MTA, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• Yono v. MDOT, ___ Mich ___ (201_), oral argument on application granted, amicus curiae for Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County filed by Carson J. Tucker in support of the state’s application
• Huddleston v. Trinity Health, et al., ___ Mich ___ (201_), oral argument on application granted, amicus curiae with Lawrence Garcia, Esq., for MDTC
• Ashley, LLC v Pittsfield Twp., 494 Mich 875 (2013), application granted, for Pittsfield Township by Carson J. Tucker (resolved by settlement)
• Bailey v. Schaaf, ___ Mich ___ (2013), amicus curiae for MDTC by Carson J. Tucker
• Atkins v. SMART, 492 Mich 707 (2012), oral argument on application, Court of Appeals case reversed by opinion, Carson J. Tucker
• Hagerty v Manistee, 493 Mich 933 (2013), amicus curiae for Michigan Municipal League, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• McMurtrie v Eaton Corp, 490 Mich 976 (2011)
• Findley v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 490 Mich 928 (2011)
• Brewer v. AD.Transport Express, Inc, 486 Mich 50 (2010)
• Stokes v Chrysler, 481 Mich 266 (2008)
• Brackett v Focus Hope, Inc, 482 Mich 269 (2008)
• Rakestraw v Gen Dynamics, 469 Mich 220 (2003)
• Sington v Chrysler Corp., (2002)

Other appeal cases Carson Tucker has handled include

• Hamed v. Wayne County, et al., 490 Mich. 1 (2011), reversing Court of Appeals published opinion after being briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker on behalf of Wayne County
• Odom v. Wayne County, et al., 482 Mich. 459 (2008), reversing Court of Appeals after being briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker on behalf of Wayne County and Wayne County Sheriff and Deputies

• Michigan Department of Transportation v Employers Mutual Casualty Co, et al., 481

  Mich. 862 (2008), reversing Court of Appeals after being briefed and argued on application by Carson J. Tucker for Trucking Company and Insurer

• Nuculovic v. Hill and SMART, 287 Mich. App. 58 (2010), briefed by Carson J. Tucker for SMART
• Molnar v. Amy Allen, Oakland County Care House, et al, 359 Fed. Appx. 623 (6th Cir. 2009), affirming district court’s judgment in favor of client represented by Carson J. Tucker
• Molnar v. Amy Allen, Oakland County Care House, et al., Case No. 09-1536 (2009), successful defense of application to United States Supreme Court by Carson J. Tucker
• Wetherill v. McHugh, et al., Case No. 10-638 (2011), co-draft response on behalf of South Dakota National Guard to petition for appeal to United States Supreme Court, cert denied by Supreme Court.

Michigan Supreme Court Issues 3-2 Decision on Meaning of “Absolute Immunity” for Executive Level Government Officials Under MCL 691.1407(5)

On June 20, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a 3-2 Opinion (Justices McCormack and Viviano not participating) holding that “absolute immunity” for executive level government officials applied as well to the performance by these officials of the duties and powers that subordinate governmental employees have in the same governmental department.  This is a remarkable holding that provides some context and extends further the scope and breadth of “absolute” executive immunity under MCL 691.1407(5) of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA).  Here the Chief of Police of Port Sanilac conducted an ordinary public arrest of an individual under somewhat controversial circumstances.  The individual who was arrested filed suit alleging counts in negligence and intentional tort (false arrest and assault and battery), and claiming the police chief was acting in both his individual and official capacity.

The legal issue concerned whether the “absolute immunity” to which executive level officials are entitled under the GTLA would shield the police chief as an “executive” exercising “executive authority” in a situation in which he acted in a capacity analogous to a “lower level” governmental employee.  In the latter circumstances, such employees are entitled to immunity from suit unless it is plead and proved that they acted with “gross negligence” under MCL 691.1407(2) and (7), or that they committed an “intentional tort” under MCL 691.1407(3).

After my successful defense of a deputy sheriff in the case of Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (2008), this latter “immunity” came to be known as “good faith” immunity.  This case is discussed extensively in the instant case by both the majority and dissent.

Here, the slim majority holds that an executive level official is entitled to “absolute” immunity under MCL 691.1407(5) even if he or she is performing his executive authority in a manner that is similar to the performance of the duties of lower level employees within his or her governmental department.

Justice Cavanagh writes a very detailed and well-researched dissent.  Joined by Justice Markman, Justice Cavanagh explains the anomaly in providing “absolute” tort immunity to executive officials performing lower-level employee functions.  In cases in which such officials commit “gross negligence” or “intentional torts”, they are not subject to suit under MCL 691.1407(5)’s grant of “absolute immunity” according to the majority’s interpretation and holding.

This is an extremely critical case.  Much like my case, Odom, it provides a modern (perhaps overreaching) interpretation of the meaning of “absolute” immunity.  Now, rather than such immunity being extended to the executive, judicial or legislative official acting and performing his “official” executive duties only, the immunity now extends to his or her acts and conduct that would ordinarily be subject to the “gross negligence” and “intentional tort” exceptions to immunity explored in Odom as applied to lower-level governmental employees.

Given the split nature of the opinion, the rare joinder in dissent between Justices Cavanagh and Markman, and that Justices McCormack and Viviano sat out, it is difficult to suggest this case, although precedent for the time being, will survive as a lasting interpretation of MCL 691.1407(5)’s grant of “absolute immunity”.

Perhaps this is an instance in which the Legislature should step in to clarify the true breadth and extent of “absolute” immunity for the highest-level officials serving the three branches of government.  It would seem unwise to extend “absolute” immunity to these officials when performing the actions of lower-level employees, when the latter would be subject to suit if they acted with “gross negligence” or committed an intentional tort in the asserted performance of the very same functions and duties.

Read the opinion here:  Petipren v Jaskowski.Opinion.06.20.2013