Hannay v. Department of Transportation
299 Mich. App. 261
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Department of Transportation is sued under the GTLA motor vehicle exception for negligent operation of a state salt truck that struck Hannay.
- Hannay sustained right shoulder injuries, underwent four surgeries, with chronic pain and daily functioning impairment.
- Plaintiff initially sued both defendant and Silcox; suit against Silcox was dismissed before trial, leaving defendant as the sole remaining defendant.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial; the court found a serious impairment of bodily function and awarded noneconomic damages ($474,904) and economic damages (work loss $767,076 and ordinary services $153,872).
- Defendant sought dismissal of economic damages for work loss under the GTLA and no-fault interplay; plaintiff argued damages are recoverable under MCL 500.3135(3)(c).
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that work loss and loss-of-services damages are recoverable against a governmental entity and that the trial court’s calculation of damages was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are work loss and loss of services recoverable under the GTLA motor vehicle exception? | Hannay argues these damages arise from bodily injury and are permitted by MCL 500.3135(3)(c). | Department contends the motor vehicle exception covers only bodily injury or property damage, excluding no-fault economic damages. | Yes; recoverable damages under MCL 500.3135(3)(c) are allowed against the state. |
| Was the trial court’s calculation of work-loss damages proper given evidence of potential full-time work? | Hannay argues damages should reflect full-time employment offered upon graduation. | Department argues damages should be based on evidence of actual part-time work or likelihood. | Damages based on part-time employment were properly found not clearly erroneous. |
| Was the cross-appeal appropriately decided regarding the basis (part-time vs full-time) for work-loss damages? | Hannay contends full-time earnings should be used given a full-time offer. | Department maintains the court’s reliance on part-time employment evidence is correct. | Trial court’s decision to award on part-time basis was not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 (2008) (defines bodily injury for purposes of motor vehicle action against a government entity)
- Swartout v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 156 Mich App 350 (1986) (lost wages proof requires showing potential employment and wages)
- Copus v MEEMIC Ins Co, 291 Mich App 593 (2011) (lost wages under no-fault benefits; admissible evidence for damages)
- Hardy v Oakland Co, 461 Mich 561 (2000) (no-fault damages scope for motor vehicle actions against governmental entities)