Trial Lawyers Takeaway: there can be more than one proximate cause under GTLA immunity exception, but must be "most immediate, efficient, and direct cause."
Kersch Ray ran cross-country on Chelsea High School’s cross-country team, which was coached by Eric Swager. During an early morning practice, Swager told the runners to cross an intersection even though the crosswalk sign warned “Do Not Walk.” When the runners crossed the street, Ray was hit by a car and injured.
The GTLA generally makes government employees immune from suit, but the statute makes an exception for when the employee’s conduct amounts to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage. The question is whether the statute’s phrase “the proximate cause” is different from a proximate cause.
Read MoreTrial Lawyers' Bottom-line: State Boundary Commission cannot rule on validity of Act 425 agreements; municipalities may include zoning provisions in Act 425 agreement.
Two trusts and a corporation, TeriDee LLC, owned land in Clam Lake Township that was zoned for forest-recreational use. The landowners wanted to develop the land for commercial use instead. To that end, the landowners filed an annexation petition to transfer the land to Cadillac. Around the same time, Clam Lake and Haring Charter Township entered into an Act 425 agreement to transfer the land to Haring.
When the landowners’ annexation petition reached the State Boundary Commission, the Commission’s statutory duty was to determine whether an Act 425 Agreement was “in effect.” The Commission, in carrying out this duty, determined it had the authority to declare the Act 425 Agreement “invalid” (using a number of statutory criteria) as opposed to just determining whether the agreement was “in effect.”
Read MoreTrial Lawyers’ Bottom Line: Rule 411 does not apply to municipal electricity providers, and the no-switch rule applies only if the customer is presently already receiving electricity.
The Court granted to leave to consider overruling Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v Public Service Commision, 489 Mich 27 (2011). The Court also clarified the meaning of MCL 124.3, which outlines "the no-switch" rule.
Read MoreTrial-lawyers’ bottom line: For-profit schools are eligible for tax exemption under MCL 211.9(1).
SBC Health Midwest ran Sanford-Brown College Grand Rapids, a for-profit school located (oddly) in Kentwood, Michigan. SBC requested a tax exemption for the school under MCL 211.9(1). The City of Kentwood denied it. SBC appealed the decision to the Michigan Tax Tribunal, which also denied the exemption, holding that the statute provides an exemption for nonprofit schools only. SBC appealed again, finally winning in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the tax tribunal’s decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal; the question was whether a for-profit school could avail itself of the property exemption in MCL 211.9(1)(a).
Read MoreHelen Yono stepped into a pothole and broke her ankle when she approached her car, which was parked in a parallel parking lane on M-22 in Suttons Bay. She sued the state for failure to maintain the road in a reasonably safe condition. The state claimed governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1407(1), which grants immunity to any governmental agency “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.”
There is one exception to this immunity, however, and that is the (familiar to many attorneys) “highway exception.” The Legislature codified the highway exception in MCL 691.1402(1) by stating that the agency responsible for highways “shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.” But what the Legislature giveth, the Legislature taketh away: the statute goes on to say that the highway exception “extends only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” And this brings us to Ms. Yono’s case. Was the parallel parking line—a very common road design in smaller Michigan towns—part of “the highway designed for vehicular travel”?
Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: Governmental immunity extends to parallel parking lanes, so the municipality is not liable for failing to maintain that portion of the road.
Read More