 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barth v. Goal Tender Sports Pub and Grill9/22/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Murphy and Davis, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of all defendants and dismissing the case. We affirm.
The case arose when defendant Gravelyn, the decedent, and several of their friends spent the evening at several establishments, including those run by the other defendants, consuming alcohol. At the end of the evening, and under disputed circumstances, Gravelyn ended up driving the decedent's vehicle, with the decedent and one other individual as passengers. At some point thereafter, the vehicle crashed, the decedent was killed, and the other passenger was seriously injured. Plaintiff filed this wrongful death action on the basis of Gravelyn's negligence and the remaining defendants' violation of the Michigan Liquor Control Code of 1998, MCL 436.1101 et seq. The trial court concluded that reasonable minds could not differ that decedent had voluntarily given Gravelyn the keys to her vehicle while Gravelyn was visibly intoxicated, thereby contributing to her own death. Therefore, the trial court granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the basis of the "wrongful-conduct rule."
A grant or denial of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on the basis of the entire record to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118-119; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). When reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), which tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint, we consider all evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and grants summary disposition only where the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact. Id. at 120. A trial court's conclusions of law are also reviewed de novo. Chapdelaine v Sochocki, 247 Mich App 167, 169; 635 NW2d 339 (2001).
The wrongful-conduct rule bars a claim where "'a plaintiff's action is based, in whole or in part, on his own illegal conduct.'" Hashem v Les Stanford Oldsmobile, Inc, 266 Mich App 61, 89; 697 NW2d 558 (2005), quoting Orzel v Scott Drug Co, 449 Mich 550, 558; 537 NW2d 208 (1995). In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, as the representative of the decedent's estate, "has no better claim than the decedent would have had." Hashem, supra at 88 n 10, citing Toth v Goree, 65 Mich App 296, 298; 237 NW2d 297 (1975). Thus, where there is "a sufficient causal nexus between" the decedent's illegal conduct and the decedent's damages, which in this case are her death, the wrongful-conduct rule will bar any recovery by plaintiff. Hashem, supra at 89. However, the rule will not apply merely because she engaged in illegal conduct, and the rule only applies to some kinds of illegal conduct. Id. at 89-91.
At the time of the accident, MCL 257.625(2) provided in relevant part, pursuant to 2000 PA 460, as follows:
The owner of a vehicle or a person in charge or in control of a vehicle shall not authorize or knowingly permit the vehicle to be operated upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, within this state by a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance, who has an alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine, or whose ability to operate the motor vehicle is visibly impaired due to the consumption of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of i
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|