One Court of Justice

On June 29, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court administratively closed one case because the plaintiff-appellant failed to refile his pleadings as required by the Court’s order.

On June 26, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied applications for leave to appeal in seven cases and denied reconsideration in Attorney General v. MPSC, Case Nos. 136431 and 134676.  Our previous post regarding the Court’s summary decision in MPSC can be found here.

Whiskey, a horse, lives in Columbiaville, Michigan.  During a visit by a neighbor, he reared up, catching the neighbor’s hand in his halter and injuring the neighbor’s shoulder and arm.  The neighbor sued the owner, who was present during these events, claiming that the owner was negligent by failing to properly secure Whiskey before saddling him, by alarming him, and by saddling Whiskey in a manner that caused him to spook.  In Beattie v. Mickalich, No. 284130 (published June 25, 2009), the Court of Appeals interpreted the Equine Activity Liability Act, MCL § 691.1661 et seq., and held that an exception in the Act authorizing negligence claims applies only when the negligence involves something other than inherently risky equine activity.  The court therefore affirmed the grant of summary disposition in favor of the owner.

Read more »

In Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Keizer-Morris, Inc., No. 284753 (published June 25, 2009), the Court of Appeals reversed a circuit court order denying a motion to intervene.  The background events began when a man was injured while performing construction activities, allegedly because a piece of equipment exploded.  The injured man sued the equipment manufacturer.  The equipment manufacturer then sought to have its insurer defend the suit, but the insurer denied coverage.  The insurer filed a separate suit—this suit— seeking a declaration that its policy excluded coverage for the accident.  The injured man sought to intervene in this suit as a necessary party because the equipment manufacturer had dissolved or otherwise become defunct, but the circuit court denied his motion to intervene, even though the equipment manufacturer neither appeared nor filed any opposition to the insurer’s motion for summary disposition.  Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Markey concluded that the injured man’s interests were not adequately represented by the existing parties, see MCR 2.209(A)(3), and held that circuit court abused its discretion by denying the injured man’s motion to intervene under these circumstances.

On June 24, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court issued one order in the case of Wojnicz v. Parole Board, No. 139017.  The Court denied the prisoner’s motion to waive filing fees, for the reason that under MCL § 600.2963, a prisoner pursuing a civil action is liable for filing fees.  However, the Court authorized a delayed payment plan.  A copy of the Court’s order can be found here.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals published a per curiam decision in 2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel, No. 284547, which affirmed the decision of the Charlevoix County Circuit Court that the owners of lots that fronted Lake Charlevoix but were separated from the water by a road, did not have riparian rights because that road had been dedicated to public use.  The Court concluded that the dedication of the road for public use, which was done under the 1887 Plat Act, vested the public with a fee title interest in the road.  The fronting property owners argued that the dedication was only for the limited purpose of maintaining the street, and did not cut off their riparian rights.  The Court of Appeals agreed that the language of the dedication controls the extent and scope of the fee interest.  But the Court of Appeals examined the exact language in the 1911 dedication, and concluded that the broad dedication of the road for the public’s “use” did not limit the scope of the fee interest to maintenance and does not vest the property owners with any riparian rights.

On June 23, 2009, the Court of Appeals published a split opinion in Moser v. City of Detroit, No. 283922, holding that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) did not have governmental immunity from the plaintiff’s suit in tort for injuries he suffered when concrete from the fascia of an overpass fell onto his windshield.  MDOT filed this interlocutory appeal of right after the Wayne County Circuit Court concluded that the highway exception to governmental immunity, MCL § 691.1402, applied in this situation.  The majority affirmed, reasoning that the definition of a highway includes bridges, that the Michigan Supreme Court in Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Commission, 463 Mich. 143, 162, 615 N.W.2d 702 (2000), determined the exception encompassed the “actual physical structure of the roadbed surface,” and that the fascia, being necessary to support the traveled surface, is part of the structure of the roadbed surface.   MDOT therefore could be held liable for not keeping this part of the improved portion of the highway reasonably safe and fit for travel.  The dissent disagreed, arguing that the statute, if it is narrowly drawn as it should be, must be interpreted to only encompass that portion of the bridge that is driven on (i.e., makes contact with the wheels), which does not include the fascia.  The dissenting opinion can be found here.

Yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court denied 121 applications for leave to appeal, denied 12 motions for reconsideration, remanded one case to the trial court, remanded three cases to the Court of Appeals, ordered supplemental briefing and oral argument on the application for leave to appeal in Lee v. City of Detroit, No. 138091, concerning the sufficiency of the evidence in a Whistleblower claim, granted leave to appeal in People v. Wilcox, No. 136956, on the issue of whether the legislative sentencing guidelines applied in that case, and granted reconsideration in People v. Richmond, No. 136648, on the issue of whether the dismissal of charges rendered moot the prosecutor’s subsequent appeal.

In response to the State’s budget problems, Friday, June 19, 2009, marked the first of six so-called “furlough” days that the Michigan Supreme Court has scheduled for itself and the Court of Appeals through the end of the year.  Our previous post announcing the program and listing the furlough dates can be found here.

On Thursday, June 18, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order staying trial court proceedings in Korpal v. Shaheen, Case No. 138724, pending resolution of the interlocutory application for leave to appeal.