 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Enertel12/17/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
In this slip and fall premises liability action, defendant city of South Lyon ("South Lyon") appeals by leave granted the trial court's order denying its motion to name Enterel, Inc., as a non-party at fault. We affirm.
Plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell on a sidewalk located within South Lyon. According to plaintiff, Enterel had recently replaced the sidewalk in question under a contract to install fiber optic cable for Ameritech, Inc. Plaintiff claimed that the newly installed concrete slabs sunk below the level of the adjoining slabs, creating an uneven and hazardous surface. Plaintiff further asserted that South Lyon was informed of the problem well before her accident. She alleged that defendants negligently, carelessly, and improperly maintained and constructed the sidewalk.
Both Enterel and South Lyon moved for summary disposition on the grounds that the danger was open and obvious. While the trial court granted Enterel's motion, it denied South Lyons' motion, citing Haas v City of Ionia, 214 Mich App 361; 543 NW2d 21 (1995), because a municipality cannot rely upon the open and obvious defense where liability is premised on a failure to repair its sidewalk. After the trial court denied its motion, South Lyon requested permission to identify Enterel, under MCR 2.112(K), as a non-party at fault and the trial court granted this request at the conclusion of the hearing. However, plaintiff subsequently objected to Enterel being named as a non-party at fault and filed a motion to set aside the trial court's order. Plaintiff asserted that naming Enterel as a non-party at fault would be inconsistent with the trial court's determination that Enterel had no duty because of the open and obvious determination. The trial court agreed and set aside its previous order.
On appeal, South Lyon contends that Michigan's several liability system permits it to name Enterel as a potential non-party at fault. South Lyon argues that the fact Enterel was previously dismissed from the lawsuit under the open and obvious doctrine does not preclude the trial court from apportioning fault to Enterel under MCL 600.6304(8). We disagree. A trial court's decision to grant relief from a judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Detroit Free Press, Inc v Dept of State Police, 233 Mich App 554, 556; 593 NW2d 200 (1999). However, issues involving statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo on appeal as issues of law. Oade v Jackson Nat'l Life Ins Co, 465 Mich 244, 250; 632 NW2d 126 (2001).
The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Hinkle v Wayne Co Clerk, 245 Mich App 405, 414; 631 NW2d 27 (2001). The Legislature is presumed to intend the meaning it plainly expressed. Guardian Photo, Inc v Dep't of Treasury, 243 Mich App 270, 276-277; 621 NW2d 233 (2000). "In reviewing the statute's language, every word should be given meaning, and we should avoid a construction that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory." Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). However, when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is neither required nor permitted. Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Marlette Homes, Inc, 456 Mich 511, 515; 573 NW2d 611 (1998).
The common-law doctrine of joint and several liability among multiple tortfeasors was replaced with the doctrine of several liability as a result of Michigan's 1995 tort reform legislation. Smiley v Corrigan, 248 Mich App 51, 53; 638 NW2d 151 (2001); see also MCL 600.2956. As a result of the Legislature's "fair share liability" system, each tortfeasor is responsib
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|