TOV Injury and Safety Blog

Injury victims "0 for 3" on the day: Summary judgment granted to insurers in all cases, including dob bite.

Brian Stacey, a minor, suffered serious scarring when he was bit by a neighbor's pit bull.  He sued the Colonial Acres Associates, LLC, and Newbury Management Co., the operators of the trailer park where he lived, alleging that they bore some of the responsibility for his injury.  Through his parents, Stacey argued that the Defendants had violated their own rules by allowing the pit bull to live in the trailer park for years, despite the prohibition of several breeds of dogs known to have a propensity for biting or violent behavior.

Lawyer who includes police dog as a named defendant must pay costs

When Inez Starks' lawyer sued the officers who arrested her, and the dog they used to assist in the arrest, the Court properly taxed her for making a frivolous claim, according to the Court of Appeals.  Apparently the attorney--who will probably be the person paying the costs--admitted to the Court that he named the dog as a publicity stunt.

Landlord can't be held responsible for tenant's loose dogs

Jimmy Johnson was injured in an attack by two dogs who escaped from a nearby property.  He sued the owner of the dogs and also sued the landlord of the premises where the dogs were kept (probably in part because the tenants probably did not have any insurance to cover their liability and the property owner did). 

A dog is an open and obvious danger that relieves the landlord of responsibility?

 Leroy Allen sued A & M Properties after he was bit by a dog with known vicious propensities on the front porch of a duplex owned by A & M.  Apparently A & M had purchased insurance coverage for premises liability but not for dog ownership, as Allen's attorneys took a default judgment against the dog owner, and dismissed all but his "safe premises" claim.  In a fairly confusing opinion, the Court held that the dog  was an "open and obvious" danger, even though it broke through a tenant's apartment window to attack Allen in a common area.

Dispute among "horsey" set in Oakland County addresses stray dogs and leash ordinance

Kallie Roesner and her neighbors Robert Tyler and Helen Hourdakis have engaged in a long-running dispute over property boundaries, alleged stalking, trespass, assault and whatever other neighborly conduct can be accompanied by a "hand gesture."  Eventually, Roesner filed a lawsuit (not the first between them) alleging that the Defendants' dogs had run into the road and startled the horse she was riding, causing her to suffer a broken nose, a herniated disk,  "whiplash" and a wrist injury.  The Circuit Court judge dismissed  her various claims, including her claim that the defendants' loose dogs violated Oakland County's leash ordinance.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld  most of the dismissal, but reinstated the injury claim arising out of the violation of the leash ordinance.

Court overturns jury verdict involving unleashed dog after jury verdict form error is discovered

The Court of Appeals voted unanimously to overturn a jury verdict against Charles Pease, after Pease sued Roger Riley to collect compensation for injuries Pease suffered.  Pease alleged that he suffered serious injuries when Riley's unleashed dog ran into his motorcycle.  Under MCL 287.262, dog owners are required to keep loose dogs on a leash, and they can be held responsible if a dog running loose causes another person injuries.  Unfortunately, at the conclusion of the trial, the defendants submitted a jury verdict form which required that the loose dog be the SOLE CAUSE of the injuries.  Under the law, the victim can collect from the at-fault party if the latter's negligence is A "significant contributing factor" in causing the injury--even if other factors played a role. 

Noting that the form contradicted the Judge's (appropriate) instructions regarding multiple causes, and that the form had not been approved by the victim's attorney, the Court of Appeals panel was obligated to send the case back for a new trial.  There being no evidence that the defense attorney intentionally submitted an erroneous form, or that the victim's attorney knowingly allowed the erroneous form to be used, a form that very reasonably may have mis-led the jurors was grounds for overturning their verdict.

Man can sue for exacerbation of his previous injuries

Luke Arntz's car struck two of Mark Laper's cows that were wandering loose in the road in Montcalm County.  The Defendants sought to dismiss his claim, arguing that he had not proved any real injury because by June of 2007, he was walking 8 miles a day, had stoped taking his medications and had returned to his pre-accident level of pain and disability.  The trial judge apparently misunderstood the Defendants' argument and ruled that since Arntz was "back to normal" within two months of the injury, he could not prove that any of his problems were related to the April, 2005, collision.  The higher court reversed and sent the case back to the trial court for trial.  It pointed out that even if Defendants' evidence established beyond dispute that Arntz was fine within two years, this finding would not exclude his right to prove that he suffered pain and disability in the interim. 

Since Laper's liability arose out of failing to confine his animals and not "out of the use, ownership and maintenance of a motor vehicle," he was not entitled to the "serioum impairment" threshold defense in the no fault statute.

Michigan Supreme Court clarifies Equine Liability Act

This week the Supreme Court decided a case arising out of the negligent management of a horse.  The case, Tina Lee Beattie v. Mark Mickalich, had originally been dismissed by the Lapeer County Circuit Court when the trial judge decided that Mickalich was protected and immune from suit because of the Equine Activity LIability Act.    The Court of Appeals had agreed with the lower court, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that by its precise terms, the Act preserved responsibility in the owner "if the person commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury."   Justice Markman wrote separately to confirm that the plain language of the Act "does not provide blanket immunity to a horse owner."  Justice Young, despite this plain language, would grant the horse owner immunity, and as usual, Justice Corrigan would also have given the immunity language in the statute broad application to protect insurers. 

Court interprets Equine Activity Liability Act to protect owner from negligence

Trina Beattie was injured when a horse being saddled by its owner startled and lifted her off the ground as she grasped its halter.  She missed several months of work and has continuing long-term physical ramificiations from the injuries she suffered.  Beattie and two companions alleged she'd been invited to defendant's home to ride a partially-broke horse, while defendant argued Beattie had invited herself.  Before reaching the factual discrepancies, however, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Beattie's case, based on its interpretation of the Equine Activity LIability Act.

Dogs running loose create 100K debt

In Lapeer County, Larry McDowell maintained a deer and elk farm.  His animals were consistently harrassed by the neighbors dogs (apparently 13 of them).  During the time period in question, he lost almost fifty percent of his animals, compared with an annual loss, normally, of only 2-3 percent.  The losses stopped when Defendant got rid of her dogs, and numerous witnesses testified to the invasion of his farm by Defendant's dogs during the time period in question.