 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Braun v. York Properties Inc.6/2/1998
In these consolidated cases, York Properties, Inc., the owners and manager of the mobile-home park at which the underlying events took place (hereinafter defendants) appeal as of right the judgment for plaintiff Nicholas Braun on his negligence claim and the order denying their motion for mediation sanctions against plaintiffs Kathy, Thomas, and Bryan Braun. We vacate the judgment in Docket No. 184796 because defendants did not owe plaintiff Nicholas Braun a duty of care. In Docket Nos. 190771 and 190956, however, we affirm the denial of mediation sanctions.
Plaintiff Nicholas Braun, a twelve-year-old child, was seriously injured when bitten by his neighbors' dog, a Labrador, while playing inside the neighbors' mobile home. Nicholas, along with his mother, father, and brother, commenced this action against his neighbors and defendants, for injuries arising out of the dog bite. Nicholas settled his claims against his neighbors for $100,000. The trial court granted a directed verdict with respect to the claims of plaintiffs Kathy, Thomas, and Bryan Braun. The jury, however, found for Nicholas with respect to his claim against defendants for negligently failing to enforce rules and regulations regarding dogs in the mobile-home park. The court entered judgment for Nicholas in the amount of $50,000 for past non-economic damages, $100,000 for future medical expenses, and $123,904.95 for future non-economic damages. The trial court subsequently denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and remittitur. The court also denied defendants' motion for mediation sanctions against Kathy, Thomas, and Bryan Braun.
Docket No. 184796
Defendants first argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict because plaintiff Nicholas Braun failed to show that they owed him a duty of care. We agree. This Court reviews de novo the trial court's decision on a motion for a directed verdict. Berryman v K mart Corp, 193 Mich App 88, 91; 483 NW2d 642 (1992). This Court considers the evidence presented at trial in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case. Id. A directed verdict should be granted only if reasonable jurors could not reach different Conclusions. Id.
The question presented is whether under the circumstances of this case a landlord who promulgates rules and regulations regarding tenants' dogs owes a third party a duty to use reasonable care to enforce those rules. Generally, the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to decide, but where certain factual circumstances give rise to a duty, and there are disputed facts, a jury must determine whether those factual circumstances exist. Howe v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 219 Mich App 150, 156; 555 NW2d 738 (1996). " he jury decides the question of duty only in the sense that it determines whether the proofs establish the elements of a relationship which the court has already concluded give rise to a duty as a matter of law." Smith v Allendale Mut Ins Co, 410 Mich 685, 714-715; 303 NW2d 702 (1981). This Court has considered a landlord's duty to protect others from attacks by tenants' animals on two occasions, in Szkodzinski v Griffin, 171 Mich App 711; 431 NW2d 51 (1988), and Feister v Bosack, 198 Mich App 19; 497 NW2d 522 (1993).
In Szkodzinski, the plaintiff sought to recover from a landlord under a local ordinance, a strict liability theory, and the common law for injuries sustained when a tenant's dog attacked him. The plaintiff's local ordinance claim was rejected because the ordinance did not create a cause of action. The strict liability claim was rejected because the Michig
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|