Estate of Ezekiel D Goodwin v. Northwest Michigan Fair Association
325 Mich. App. 129
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Six-year-old Ezekiel Goodwin (a clover bud 4‑H member) was struck and killed by a truck backing on a service drive at the Northwest Michigan Fairgrounds during fair week; the drive was used by both pedestrians/bicyclists and intermittent motor vehicles.
- Plaintiff Rebecca Goodwin, as personal representative of Ezekiel’s estate, sued the fair association claiming the mixed‑use service drive was an unreasonably dangerous condition (premises liability/nuisance); the vehicle driver settled and is not on appeal.
- At trial the jury found the driver negligent and apportioned fault 50% to the fair and 50% to the driver, awarding $2,000,000 in damages; the court entered judgment for $1,000,000 against the fair and awarded taxable costs and prejudgment interest.
- The fair sought to designate Ezekiel’s father, Jeff Goodwin, as a nonparty at fault for negligent supervision; the trial court refused, citing parental immunity, and instructed the jury not to consider parental negligence.
- The fair also sought an open‑and‑obvious instruction and challenged the court’s use of certain campground regulation violations as evidence; the court excluded open‑and‑obvious as to Ezekiel and gave M Civ JI 12.05 on two DEQ regs (one of which the appellate court found irrelevant).
- The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court erred by precluding apportionment to an immune parent and erred in part on regulatory instructions; it also vacated costs and prejudgment interest as the judgment was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an immune parent be named/considered as a nonparty at fault under Michigan comparative fault statutes? | Estate argued parental immunity precludes assessment of parental fault and jury should not consider Jeff. | Fair argued parental immunity does not eliminate parental duty; statutes require allocation of fault to nonparties regardless of recoverability. | Parent may be named as nonparty at fault; trial court erred in excluding Jeff from fault allocation. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to submit parental fault (Jeff) to the jury? | Estate argued no competent evidence of Jeff’s negligence; any error was harmless. | Fair argued evidence showed Jeff knew of intermittent vehicle use yet allowed a 6‑year‑old to ride unaccompanied. | There was sufficient evidence such that excluding Jeff was not harmless; remand for new trial. |
| Does the open‑and‑obvious doctrine bar liability as to a six‑year‑old invitee? | Fair argued open‑and‑obvious should apply (or at least to caretaker). | Estate argued Bragan and tender‑years doctrine preclude applying open‑and‑obvious to children under seven. | Open‑and‑obvious does not apply to children under seven; no error in refusing that instruction as to Ezekiel; fair may raise open‑and‑obvious re: caretaker on remand. |
| Were DEQ campground regs admissible under M Civ JI 12.05 as evidence of negligence? | Estate relied on regs about number of campsites and road width to show unsafe conditions. | Fair argued number-of-sites reg irrelevant and not proximate cause; challenged road‑width applicability. | Court erred allowing the campsite‑number regulation (irrelevant); did not abuse discretion allowing instruction re: road/right‑of‑way width as potentially relevant to roadway danger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandonkelaar v. Kid’s Kourt, LLC, 290 Mich. App. 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (discusses comparative‑fault statutes and nonparty fault issues)
- Kaiser v. Allen, 480 Mich. 31 (Mich. 2008) (explains legislative shift from joint-and-several to fair‑share liability)
- Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 472 Mich. 44 (Mich. 2005) (fair‑share allocation and limits on joint liability)
- Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 483 Mich. 18 (Mich. 2009) (duty is prerequisite to apportioning fault to a nonparty)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (Mich. 2012) (describes landowner duty and the open‑and‑obvious doctrine)
- Bragan v. Symanzik, 263 Mich. App. 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (applies a reasonable‑child standard for open‑and‑obvious to minors and discusses heightened duty to children)
- Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425 (Mich. 1977) (parental duty of care and supervision)
- Woodman v. Kera LLC, 486 Mich. 228 (Mich. 2010) (landowner duties to minors and related principles)