Bailey v. Schaaf
810 N.W.2d 641
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bailey sued Schaaf, Hi-Tech, Evergreen, and Radney for injuries from a shooting on Evergreen property; Bailey sought damages, negligence, premises liability, vicarious liability, and a third-party beneficiary contract claim.
- Hi-Tech provided “courtesy patrolling services” to Evergreen under a 2003 contract; a 2006 draft contract contemplated enhanced patrols and hours, with the 2006 contract ultimately executed August 28, 2006.
- Bailey alleged that Evergreen and Radney breached duties by failing to respond to the August 4, 2006 emergency; Bailey alleged Baker and Campbell (Hi-Tech guards) knew of the threat and did not act.
- The trial court granted summary disposition against Bailey on various claims and entered a default judgment against Schaaf; on appeal, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings.
- The appellate court held (i) no abuse of discretion in granting amendments to admissions; (ii) no genuine issue that Bailey was an intended third-party beneficiary on August 4, 2006; (iii) under MacDonald v PKT, Inc., premises possessors must merely call police in ongoing situations, but may be liable through agents for failing to respond; (iv) Hi-Tech had no independent duty; (v) overall, the trial court erred only to the extent it dismissed Bailey’s premises-possessor duty claims given the agency theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to amend admissions standard | Bailey | Schaaf/defendants | Not an abuse of discretion |
| Third-party beneficiary contract existence | Bailey argues August 2006 drafts created duties to guests | Lack of offer/meeting of minds on August 4, 2006 | No genuine issue of fact; no contract extending duty to guests on Aug. 4, 2006 |
| Premises possessor duty to respond to criminal acts | Evergreen/Radney duties extend to guests and enforcement via MacDonald | No duty beyond calling police; public safety government function | Affirmed in part; reversed in part to allow claims against principals via agents; remanded for proceedings |
| Hi-Tech's duty independent of contract | Hi-Tech had duty independent of Evergreen contract | Duty arises solely from contract; no independent duty | Hi-Tech duty properly dismissed; no independent common-law duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich 495 (1988) (merchant not required to provide police protection; public safety is government duty)
- Scott v Harper Recreation, Inc., 444 Mich 441 (1993) (warning against imposing liability for not preventing all crime; protection not guaranty of safety)
- Mason v Royal Dequindre, Inc., 455 Mich 391 (1997) (merchant liability for foreseeable harm; foreseeability limits duty; distinguishes patrons from invitees)
- MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001) (narrowed duty to respond to ongoing premises situations; only require contacting police; no duty to provide security personnel)