On November 7, 2013, in Vega v. Gillette, et al., the Court of Appeals ruled a plaintiff who failed to file a notice of an intent to sue the state under MCL 600.6431(3) was barred from suing the government under the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1404 of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA).  The plaintiff was [...]
Tag: negligence
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. [...]
Supreme Court Grants to Consider Whether Governmental Entities are Liable for “Wage Loss” Damages Under No-Fault Act
The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the "motor vehicle" exception to governmental immunity allows parties to seek economic damages in the form of "wage loss", for bodily injuries arising out of motor vehicle accidents in which a governmental entity is involved. Â The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) allows suit [...]
Michigan Supreme Court Grant Oral Argument to Consider Causation and Speculative Injury Claim in Medical Malpractice Action
The Supreme Court has granted oral argument on an application in a medical malpractice case to consider the Court of Appeals' majority ruling that speculative injuries can be the basis for damages in a medical malpractice case. Â The Court specifically requests the litigants to brief and address whether the Court of Appeals' majority ruling is [...]
Michigan Supreme Court Issues Opinion Articulating Its Constitutional Limitations and Authority in Changing the Common Law
In Price v. High Pointe Oil Co, Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court provides a clear pronouncement on the constitutional limitations and legitimate authority the judiciary has to change the common law.  In doing so, the Court refused to extend as a common-law rule the view that a plaintiff may recover non-economic damages (i.e., mental and emotional [...]