Bailey v. Schaaf
304 Mich. App. 324
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bailey sued Schaaf for injuries from a 2007 shooting at an apartment complex and added Evergreen, Radney, Hi-Tech, Hi-Tech’s owner Johnson, and guards Baker and Campbell as defendants.
- The trial court dismissed the individual defendants, then dismissed Evergreen, Radney, and Hi-Tech; Schaaf obtained a default against him.
- On appeal, this Court found Evergreen and Radney owed a limited duty to involve police and Hi-Tech had no independent common-law duty, reversing dismissal of those claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
- The Supreme Court remanded to consider (i) whether Evergreen and Radney could be held liable for their agents’ conduct under Al-Shimmari and (ii) whether Hi-Tech’s duty should be tested under Fultz/Loweke Hill standards.
- On remand, the Court held Hi-Tech’s duty was not separate from its contract with Evergreen and affirmed dismissal of Hi-Tech; Evergreen and Radney’s direct duty to involve police was the basis for liability, so the prior dismissal as to them was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hi-Tech owed a duty separate from the contract | Bailey argues Hi-Tech breached a duty beyond contract | Hi-Tech had no independent duty to Bailey beyond its contract with Evergreen | Hi-Tech had no separate duty; dismissal affirmed as to Hi-Tech |
| Whether Evergreen and Radney can be liable for failing to involve police | Bailey asserts direct liability for failure to act during ongoing crime | Evergreen/Radney contend no duty to involve police unless vicariously liable | Evergreen and Radney have a direct duty to involve police; dismissal reversed |
| Whether Al-Shimmari controls the vicarious-liability aspect on remand | Bailey’s claims could rely on vicarious liability for agents’ conduct | Al-Shimmari bars vicarious liability where the agent’s dismissal on the merits forecloses the claim | Al-Shimmari does not control if Bailey’s claims are not solely based on vicarious liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v Ludwig, 347 Mich 559 (1956) (duty distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance in contract)
- Fultz v Union-Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460 (2004) (recasts duty inquiry to whether a duty separate from contract exists)
- Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157 (2011) (clarifies test for negligent performance of contract under Fultz)
- Hill v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 492 Mich 651 (2012) (limits on duties arising from contractual relationships; separate duty analysis)
- Al-Shimmari v Detroit Med Ctr, 477 Mich 280 (2007) (vicarious liability limitations when underlying agent claim dismissed on merits)
- MacDonald v PKT, Inc, 464 Mich 322 (2001) (premises duty and special relationships; foreseeability of harm)
- Ellis v McNaughton, 76 Mich 237 (1889) (historical view on agent duty to third parties)