942 N.W.2d 667
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Buhl fell on a City of Oak Park sidewalk on May 4, 2016 and sued under the statutory defective-sidewalk exception to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1402a).
- After her fall but before resolution, the Legislature amended MCL 691.1402a (2016 PA 419) to add an "open and obvious" defense allowing municipalities to avoid liability when a dangerous condition would have been discovered by casual inspection.
- The amendment took "immediate effect" but contained no explicit retroactivity provision.
- The trial court dismissed Buhl’s suit after applying the amended statute, reasoning the amendment was procedural/remedial and thus applicable to pre-amendment accruals.
- Judge Anica Letica (dissent) reviewed whether the amendment should be applied retroactively and argued it impairs vested rights by abolishing or effectively defeating accrued causes of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2016 PA 419 applies retroactively to causes of action that accrued before its effective date | Buhl: amendment is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively because it impairs vested rights and abolishes a pre-existing cause of action | City: amendment is remedial/procedural (or clarifying) and may be applied to pending claims; no vested right in the statute-based defense | Dissent: statute lacks clear retroactive language and adds a substantive defense that impairs vested rights, so it should be applied prospectively only |
| Whether adding an open-and-obvious defense is remedial (procedural) or substantive | Buhl: it is substantive because it vitiates the municipality’s statutory duty and can totally bar previously viable claims | City: defense merely alters available defenses and does not destroy a plaintiff’s ability to bring suit | Dissent: adding the defense is substantive — it changes duty recognition and can extinguish accrued causes of action, so prospective application is required |
| Whether a plaintiff must show reliance on prior law to claim vested-rights protection | Buhl: reliance is not required; the key is whether new legal consequences attach to past events | City: (argued indirectly by majority) plaintiff’s expectation of success is insufficient to establish a vested right | Dissent: reliance is not the test; retroactivity inquiry turns on whether the amendment attaches new legal consequences to completed events |
| Whether prior case law (Jones and related decisions) meant the amendment merely clarified existing law | Buhl: the amendment overruled Jones and enacted a new rule; a belated legislative override is not necessarily retroactive | City: Legislature intended to restore/clarify the availability of the open-and-obvious defense to municipalities | Dissent: legislative action here is a substantive change overruling Jones and therefore requires prospective application |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (federal-retroactivity framework; presumption against retroactive legislation)
- Frank W. Lynch & Co. v. Flex Technologies, Inc., 463 Mich. 578 (2001) (legislative intent governs retroactivity; primary rule of construction)
- LaFontaine Saline, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (2014) (Legislature must clearly manifest retroactive intent; "immediate effect" language signals prospectivity)
- Brewer v. A D Transp. Express, Inc., 486 Mich. 50 (2010) (amendments that change substantive rights generally apply prospectively; limited rule when amendment merely reinstates prior law)
- Jones v. Enertel, Inc., 467 Mich. 266 (2002) (open-and-obvious doctrine did not apply to municipal sidewalk duty under MCL 691.1402(1))
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (2012) (open-and-obvious standard and its role in defining duty in premises-liability law)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich. 512 (2001) (open-and-obvious doctrine is part of the duty analysis, not merely an affirmative defense)
- In re Certified Questions, 416 Mich. 558 (1982) (retroactivity principles: consider explicit language, relation to antecedent events, impairment of vested rights, and remedial/procedural character)
- Rookledge v. Garwood, 340 Mich. 444 (1954) (statutory defenses may not constitute vested rights in certain contexts)
- Hurd v. Ford Motor Co., 423 Mich. 531 (1985) (amendment enacted to invalidate a judicial decision effected a substantive change and applied prospectively)