896 N.W.2d 808
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 18, 2014, Matthew Denney (decedent) struck potholes while riding a motorcycle on a Kent County road, lost control, and sustained fatal injuries; defendant Kent County Road Commission controls that road.
- Plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate, sued under the wrongful-death statute for damages including the decedent’s lost earnings.
- Defendant moved for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing governmental immunity under the GTLA barred recovery of lost earnings and other non-bodily-injury damages.
- Plaintiff argued the highway exception to the GTLA (MCL 691.1402(1)) waived immunity for damages that flowed from the decedent’s bodily injury, including lost earnings, and the wrongful-death act permits survival of that claim.
- The trial court granted defendant’s motion; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding lost-earnings damages are recoverable under the highway exception as claims that belonged to the decedent and survived under the wrongful-death statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost-earnings damages are recoverable under the GTLA highway exception when the injured person died and the claim is brought under the wrongful-death statute | Lost earnings are damages that naturally flow from the decedent’s bodily injury and survive; MCL 691.1402(1) thus waives immunity for those damages and the personal representative may pursue them under the wrongful-death act | The highway exception waives immunity only for damages suffered by the injured person; plaintiff’s claim is effectively for beneficiaries (lost financial support) and thus not within the highway exception | Reversed: lost-earnings damages are recoverable under the highway exception because they are damages the decedent suffered and would have pursued; the personal representative may bring them via the wrongful-death statute |
| Whether a distinction between lost earnings (decedent’s claim) and lost financial support (beneficiaries’ claim) affects availability under the highway exception | Lost earnings are distinct from beneficiaries’ lost financial support and are recoverable as decedent’s damages | Recovery and distribution rules of the wrongful-death statute mean the claim is for beneficiaries, not the decedent, so it falls outside the highway exception | Held that lost earnings are distinct and derive from the decedent’s bodily injury, so they fall within the highway exception despite distribution to beneficiaries |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(7))
- Wesche v. Mecosta Co. Rd. Comm., 480 Mich. 75 (Mich. 2008) (wrongful-death act is the exclusive remedy and acts as a filter for underlying claims)
- Hannay v. Dep’t of Transp., 497 Mich. 45 (Mich. 2014) (GTLA bodily-injury exceptions permit tort damages that naturally flow from the bodily injury, including work-loss damages, subject to statutory limits)
- Thorn v. Mercy Mem. Hosp. Corp., 281 Mich. App. 644 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (wrongful-death damages may include economic and noneconomic items as warranted)
- Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (statutory use of terms with established common-law meaning should be given that meaning)
- Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 296 Mich. App. 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (GTLA immunity exceptions are narrowly construed)
- Gauntlett v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 242 Mich. App. 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (first step in statutory interpretation is the statute’s text)
- The Cadle Co. v. Kentwood, 285 Mich. App. 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (identical terms in different provisions of the same act should be construed identically)
- Roberts v. Detroit, 102 Mich. 64 (Mich. 1894) (historical treatment: highway exception limits recovery to person injured)
- Maiuri v. Sinacola Constr. Co., 382 Mich. 391 (Mich. 1969) (personal representative stands in decedent’s shoes for wrongful-death claims)
- Setterington v. Pontiac Gen. Hosp., 223 Mich. App. 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (distinguishing lost financial support from decedent’s own lost earnings)