Botsford Continuing Care Corp. v. Intelistaf Healthcare, Inc.
292 Mich. App. 51
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Harris suffered a bowel-related injury during bladder surgery, later resulting in back infection and multiple procedures.
- Harris was admitted to Botsford Continuing Care Corporation for recovery in February 2001 with March 2001 colostomy,
- LPNs Lay and Holmes (StarMed employees) were at Botsford; Botsford employed nurse’s aides; some duties were Botsford’s, some StarMed’s.
- Harris sued Botsford in August 2003 alleging various negligent acts; Botsford later asserted common-law indemnification and other indemnities against StarMed.
- Botsford sought and obtained a judgment in the underlying medical malpractice case; StarMed appeals the circuit court’s disposition on indemnification.
- The circuit court granted Botsford partial summary disposition for common-law indemnification but later, on appeal, the court’s conclusion was reversed in part and remanded for factual determinations about active vs passive negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on active vs passive negligence | Botsford maintains jury found active negligence by Botsford and its employees | StarMed argues Botsford was actively negligent and not entitled to common-law indemnification | Remand needed to resolve active vs passive negligence issues |
| Whether Botsford is entitled to common-law indemnification as a matter of law | Botsford claims passive (vicarious) liability only | StarMed contends active fault barred indemnity | Remanded for factual determination; not resolved as a matter of law yet |
| Scope of indemnification claims remaining after underlying trial | All indemnity claims (contractual and implied) remain viable | Only common-law indemnification at issue; other claims unresolved | Remand to address contractual/implied contractual indemnification and contribution in light of remand |
| Impact of party agreements on jury submission of claims | Claims were submitted to jury under a single professional-negligence instruction | Agreements bound the issues presented to the jury | Court erred in assuming no active negligence based on verdict form; remand to determine issues actually decided by jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakeside Oakland Dev, LC v H & J Beef Co, 249 Mich App 517 (2002) (indemnity aligns with passive vs active negligence doctrine)
- Langley v Harris Corp, 413 Mich 592 (1992) (party seeking indemnity must be free from active negligence)
- Peeples v Detroit, 99 Mich App 285 (1980) (indemnity available only if no active fault by indemnitee)
- Parliament Constr Co v Beer Precast Concrete Ltd, 114 Mich App 607 (1982) (determine indemnity based on underlying pleadings and jury issues)
- St Luke’s Hospital v Giertz, 458 Mich 448 (1998) (indemnity requires absence of active negligence; active claims negate indemnity)
- Oberle v Hawthorne Metal Prod Co, 192 Mich App 265 (1991) (whether active or passive negligence governs indemnity depends on underlying pleadings and jury findings)
- Hartman v Century Truss Co, 132 Mich App 661 (1984) (jury verdicts can inform active vs passive negligence determination)
- West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (2003) (clarifies standards for summary disposition on negligence issues)
- Dale v Whiteman, 388 Mich 698 (1972) (indemnity is independent of contract where vicarious liability arises)