Michigan Supreme Court Controversial Cases

 

Post-Taylor “new” Michigan Supreme Court cases that have drastically changed established Michigan law

 

As unusual as these opinions may seem, keep in mind that decisions by the Michigan Supreme Court such as these “set precedent,” that is they create new law that is binding upon everyone in the state.  So these cases don’t just affect the people involved, they represent a sea change to the body of laws that govern all of us.

 

Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001). Taylor and the “new” Michigan Supreme Court majority recreated the discredited and abandoned legal concept of comparative negligence by throwing up a new technicality, the “open and obvious” doctrine.  According to this reasoning, responsibility for dangerous conditions now disappears if that condition should be “obvious” to an average person, [even if, it later turns out, the person who is injured because of the danger is actually blind and can’t see at all.]  Strangely, the court also declares that no typical person could ever be seriously injured from falling in a pothole or on a sidewalk despite the tens of thousands of injuries and deaths that are caused by these exact conditions each year.


Reed v Breton, 475 Mich 531 (2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority changed decades of common law to make it much more difficult to prove the illegal sale of alcohol to a drunk driver who killed.  The family of a person killed by a drunk driver was thrown out of court because they could not use testimony that the defendant admitted to drinking 20 beers before he killed someone while driving at 100 mph and had a .21 blood alcohol level. The court created a new impediment to accountability without any statutory basis.

 

Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority rewrote the Legislative language that outlines how seriously someone must be injured to qualify for Michigan’s mandatory No-Fault Auto Insurance benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court majority limited the rights of Michigan residents by inventing new language that is not in the statute.  This new barrier denies persons who are seriously injured in auto collisions caused by negligent and even drunk drivers from having full access to the courts even though they are still required to buy No-Fault Auto Insurance under penalty of law.


Roberts v Mecosta General Hospital, 466 Mich 57 (2002), after remand 470 Mich 679 (2004). The  Michigan Supreme Court majority denied persons injured by medical negligence [even though they already have a doctor’s-affidavit to certify their claims are meritorious] access to the courts, based on a hyper technical interpretation of a statutory pre suit notice document.  The court required that more information be included in these pre suit notice documents, which are intended to encourage the parties to settle pre suit, than is needed in the actual documents filed with the court.

 

Burton v Reed City Hospital Corp, 471 Mich 745 (2005). The Michigan Supreme Court majority again tossed out a doctor’s-affidavit-certified, meritorious, medical negligence claim because it was filed too early, even though the legislature had removed the language from the statute allowing courts to dismiss claims for these types of reasons.

 


Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority threw out decades of settled law and changed the way the statute of limitations is calculated in wrongful death cases denying the relatives of persons killed by medical negligence access to court despite the fact the claims were doctor’s-affidavit-certified as meritorious.


Nawrocki v Macomb Co Road Commn, 463 Mich 143 (2000). The Michigan Supreme Court majority virtually eliminated responsibility for the government to safely maintain public roadways. The court declared that the government entities that we created to maintain our safe roads have  “no duty” to maintain guardrails, traffic lights, sidewalks, stop signs, warning lights and other critical parts of safe roadways.  In one often-repeated example, if a traffic light is shining green in four directions and a speeding cement truck wipes out a family of five the governmental units we created to maintain safe roads are not accountable.  Even if the light is not repaired and the same thing happens again the next day.  According to the court the only part of the roadway that must be safely maintained is the asphalt.


Cameron v ACIA,  476 Mich 55( 2006). In a dramatic change of the law, the Michigan Supreme Court majority took away the rights of minors and the brain injured to hold those responsible for their injuries accountable.  The court shortened the statute of limitations to only one year for minors and brain injured persons in auto accidents in claims seeking No-Fault Auto Insurance personal injury protection benefits.

 
Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 465 Mich 53 (2001). The Michigan Supreme Court majority changed well established law and created a tortuous Catch 22, deciding that a person cannot go to court to hold a wrong doer accountable for the loss of an opportunity to survive [something that will result in their death later] until after they die, and yet if they do not die soon enough [within the two year statute of limitations] the person’s heirs will be denied court access.

 
Zsigo v Hurley Medical Center, 475 Mich 215 (2006). When a hospital employee raped a helpless patient in the hospital the Michigan Supreme Court majority created a reading of the law that found the hospital was not accountable. The court held that a hospital has no responsibility to protect patients –even helpless patients-- from employees who engage in intentional or criminal acts.


McKim v Forward Lodging Inc, 474 Mich 947 (2005). The Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that an emergency medical technician could not access the courts to receive compensation for injuries received while doing his job trying to assist injured patients.


Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000). The Michigan Supreme Court majority held that the government can escape all liability when it injures persons so long as they can prove that someone else was also partly at fault.


Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591 (2000). The Michigan Supreme Court majority reduced the protections offered to members of the public who are not paying customers of a business.

 

MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001). The Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that businesses have no duty at all to protect patrons from dangers until they see an immediate risk of harm to a customer, and even then their only duty is to make reasonable efforts to call the police and so all access to the courts for people harmed in such a situation was eliminated.


Garg v Macomb Mental Health, 472 Mich 263 (2005). The Michigan Supreme Court majority reversed decades of established law and overruled the so-called “continuing violations doctrine,” and tossed an employee out of court for what was otherwise actionable sexual harassment in the workplace.  Why?  Just because it had been going on for a long time.

 

Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority expanded the scope of immunity granted to landowners, historically limited to large tracts of undeveloped land under the Recreational Land Use Act, now granting immunity to developed suburban lots.


Michalski v Bar-Levav, 463 Mich 723 (2001). The Michigan Supreme Court majority eliminated the rights of handicapped workers to safe and reasonable working conditions.


Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 471 Mich 540 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority bars injured people who seek medical care –but who are victims of bad doctors who make medical errors during that care – from seeking compensation for the medical error if the accident that originally sent them in for medical care was their own fault, reversing decades of established law.


Radeljak v Chrysler, 475 Mich 598 ( 2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority limits access to Michigan courts for non state residents, even when the negligence occurred in Michigan.

 

Griffith v State Farm, 472 Mich 521 (2005). The Michigan Supreme Court majority held there is no requirement to pay for otherwise covered food for a quadriplegic who chooses to live with a guardian rather than in an institution.


Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003).  The Michigan Supreme Court majority created a legal definition that had never before existed and destroyed women’s work place protections against harassment when it protected harassment that was “gender-based” but “non-sexual.”  


Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562 (2005).  The Michigan Supreme Court majority overruled decades of established law and ended equitable tolling of claims for auto insurance benefits where the insurance company refuses to make a decision during the required time period. In short, this decision allows Michigan No-Fault Auto Insurance companies to avoid paying claims merely by delaying and waiting long enough before processing them.


Greene v AP Products Ltd., 475 Mich 502 (2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that a bottle of hair oil did not require a warning that the contents could be deadly and should be kept out of the reach of children.


Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408 (2005). Even though an employee who informed two supervisors about offensive improper conduct and sexual harassment, and filed numerous grievances against the harasser, the Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that employer did not have sufficient notice of sexual harassment and kicked the employee out of court.


Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority overturned a jury verdict in favor of the first female millwright at Chrysler's Jefferson Avenue Plant, who overwhelmingly proved that male employees sexually harassed her and that her employer failed to conduct a proper investigation and did very little to try to make the harassment stop.  According to the dissenting Justices the decision was motivated by the Michigan Supreme Court majority dislike of the female employee’s attorney.


Magee v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108 (2005).  The Michigan Supreme Court majority  found that even though the victimized worker’s meritorious claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination and retaliation were filed within three years of the date she resigned, the suit was too late because none of the alleged conduct occurred within the three years before filing the complaint.


Sington v Chrysler Corporation, 467 Mich 144 (2002). The Michigan Supreme Court majority, after consulting a standard dictionary, overruled the existing and well-established legal definition of the word "disability", under the Workers Compensation Act, making it far more difficult to be compensated for a normally covered work place injury.


Grimes v Dep't of Transportation, 475 Mich 72 (2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority overruled even more established law and held that the shoulder of a roadway is not part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel" thus eliminating the government’s duty to maintain them free of serious defects. A man who became a quadriplegic due to an otherwise clear case of wrongdoing was kicked out of court though his injuries were caused by a serious defect in a shoulder of a road.


Scarsella v Pollak, 461 Mich 547 (2000).   The Michigan Supreme Court majority held that persons inured by medical negligence can be thrown out of court in situations where they have otherwise meritorious claims merely because there are minor omissions in court pleadings, despite the lack of any Legislative authority to do so.

 

Philips v Mirac Inc. 470 Mich 415 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority upheld an arguably unconstitutional statute applying to rental cars that arbitrarily  sets and limits damages for injuries, disregarding law that says an individual has a constitutional right to have a jury decide the question of damages.

 

Hanson v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 465 Mich 492 (2002). The Michigan Supreme Court majority court held that the state has no liability for the defective design of a public highway no matter how many deaths or how much damage it might cause.


Rakestraw v Gen Dynamics Land Sys, 469 Mich 220 (2003). The Michigan Supreme Court majority eliminated an entire class of workers’ rights to receive Worker’s Compensation for otherwise covered on-the-job injuries, overruling solid and long established law.


Jenkins v Patel, 471 Mich 158 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court majority ignored clear Legislative language and intent and instead decided that a specialized limitation on non-economic damages in medical negligence cases could also be extended to wrongful death cases where it had never been allowed before. 


Costa v Emergency Medical Services, 475 Mich 403 (2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority greatly expanded the privilege of “governmental immunity” and suspended all requirements that governmental employee defendants comply with the statutory medical malpractice requirements in lawsuits.


Mack v City of Detroit, 467 Mich 186 (2002). The Michigan Supreme Court majority stuck down local authority to protect workers on the job from being harassed for their sexual orientation.


Henry v Dow Chemical, 473 Mich 63 (2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that persons needlessly exposed to carcinogenic Dioxins negligently released into the environment are banned from bringing claims, because they did not get cancer quickly enough, even though it is well known that it may take many years for such cancers to manifest.

 

Creech v Foot Memorial,  474 Mich 1135 (2006). The Michigan Supreme Court majority denied court access to multiple patients who learned that they had been negligently exposed to an infection while receiving medical treatment because they did not develop symptoms quickly enough, despite medical evidence that it might take years to develop the symptoms.

 

Rory v Continental,  473 Mich 457 (2005). The Michigan Supreme Court majority disregarded decades of established law and allowed insurance companies to write illegally short statutes of limitations into insurance contracts, therefore taking away the insurance coverage people were required by law to purchase. This decision reversed decades of previous law banning unethical “unconscionable” contract terms and instead decided that whatever language is in a contract is fine because “individuals” have ability to “negotiate” insurance policies.  The court determined that the fine print in an insurance contract would be enforced even where everyone agrees it is unreasonable to do so.