I previously wrote about this case and predicted it was likely destined for additional appellate review. On December 19, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the state’s application in Lego v. Liss, Supreme Court No. 149246 (Lego v. Liss Supreme Court Grant Order).
The plaintiff, a township police officer, was injured when a state trooper shot him while the two were working together on an anti-crime task force at a crime scene. The plaintiff filed suit alleging a number of causes of action against the state trooper.
Because defendant was a government employee, the “Fireman’s Rule,” codified in part as Compiled Laws, MCL 600.2966, provides that government employees are immune from tort liability for an injury to a firefighter or police officer “that arises from the normal, inherent, and foreseeable risks” of the profession.
The plain language of MCL 600.2996 does not, however, provide blanket governmental immunity from suits by firefighters or police officer. The Court will likely address the scope of the “Fireman’s Rule” as it pertains to injuries incurred by governmental employees at the hands of other governmental employees.
Read my previous post here, which contains the Court of Appeals opinion and additional background about this case.
State Asks Court to Consider Scope of Governmental Immunity in “Friendly Fire”
Carson J. Tucker represents governmental entities and individual governmental employees. He is responsible for the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Odom v. Wayne County, a case in which he succeeded in having the Supreme Court grant leave to clarify the law after more than 30 years of disarray involving liability imposed on law enforcement officers for conduct in the line of duty.
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:
- Williamson v. GM, Supreme Court No. 149850 (November 25, 2014), application filed and Supreme Court peremptorily reversed and remanded case on Mr. Tucker’s arguments alone
- 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
- 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 presented by Carson J. Tucker.
- Ghanam v. John Does, 303 Mich. App. 522 (2013), application to appeal filed in Supreme Court by Carson J. Tucker
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:
- 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. ___ (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
- 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
- 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.