Estate of Michael Travis Errett v. a Forever Recovery Inc
331521
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- Decedent Michael Errett, a Texas resident with a long history of drug addiction, completed inpatient rehab at A Forever Recovery, Inc. (AFR) in Michigan and received AFR aftercare from employee Sage Simmons.
- Errett and Simmons developed a personal (telephone/text/email) relationship after discharge; no physical contact is alleged.
- Four months after discharge Errett relapsed and died of a heroin/cocaine overdose; plaintiff Whaley (his administratrix) sued AFR and Simmons for negligent aftercare/supervision contributing to the relapse and death.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted dismissal under the wrongful-conduct rule (MCR 2.116(C)(8)), concluding Errett’s illegal drug use was a proximate cause of his death and barred recovery.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, affirmed summary disposition (but under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because the record supported judgment as a matter of law), holding the wrongful-conduct rule bars the estate’s claims and that neither statutory nor culpability exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wrongful-conduct rule bars recovery for injuries based on the decedent's illegal drug use | Whaley: wrongful-conduct rule should not bar claim because defendants’ aftercare conduct caused the injury | Defendants: Errett’s illegal possession/use of controlled substances was a proximate cause of death, so the wrongful-conduct rule bars recovery | Held: Rule applies — Errett’s illegal drug use was a proximate cause and bars the estate’s claim |
| Whether Michigan’s comparative-fault statutes abrogated the wrongful-conduct rule | Whaley: 1995 comparative-negligence statutes supersede/common-law bar and allow allocation of fault | Defendants: Legislature did not clearly abrogate the wrongful-conduct rule; statutes preserved existing defenses | Held: Statutes did not abrogate the wrongful-conduct rule; rule remains valid |
| Whether the culpability exception (greater defendant culpability) saves the claim | Whaley: Simmons’ inappropriate romantic relationship and AFR’s supervisory failures make defendants more culpable than Errett | Defendants: No illegal conduct alleged by defendants; only Errett committed the serious illegal acts causing death | Held: Culpability exception inapplicable — plaintiff did not allege defendants committed illegal acts placing them more culpable |
| Whether the statutory-basis exception applies (statutes create a private right to recover) | Whaley: Medical-malpractice statutes create an exception allowing recovery despite decedent’s illegal conduct | Defendants: Cited statutes do not create penal prohibitions defendants violated nor explicitly authorize recovery here | Held: Statutory-basis exception inapplicable — plaintiff failed to identify a statute that clearly authorizes recovery for this injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Orzel v. Scott Drug Co., 449 Mich 550 (Mich. 1995) (articulates Michigan wrongful-conduct rule, its limits, and two exceptions)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (Mich. 1999) (standard of review for summary disposition)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (Mich. 2003) (summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) standard)
- Cervantes v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 272 Mich App 410 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (proximate-cause requirement for wrongful-conduct rule)