Lela Tompkins v. Crown Corr, Inc.
726 F.3d 830
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Tompkins slipped at DTW McNamara Terminal and sued Northwest, WCAA, and Kimco; Hunt and Crown were later added via non-party fault and third-party actions.
- Case involved GTLA public building exception (WCAA) and premises liability theories against Northwest and Kimco for maintenance/inspection failures.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hunt and Crown; denied Northwest’s motion on some grounds; granted WCAA and Kimco motions; trial against Northwest reached verdict for Tompkins.
- Jury apportioned fault 45% Northwest, 30% Crown, 25% to Tompkins, with damages of $3,198.80 (only $1,439.46 attributable to Northwest).
- Tompkins appeals the district court’s summary-judgment rulings and denial of a new-trial motion; Northwest appeals denials of its summary-judgment and directed-verdict motions.
- The panel affirms the district court’s judgments and rejects Northwest’s challenges to preclusion and timely-filed motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| GTLA public building exception applies to WCAA? | Tompkins claims WCAA is liable under GTLA for maintenance/repair of the public building. | WCAA argues immunity for design defect; no liability for repair/maintenance. | WCAA immune; design-defect theory bars claims under GTLA. |
| Kimco owed a duty independent of contract? | Loweke-Fultz principles support tort duty to a third party. | Kimco lacked independent duty; contract limited liability. | Kimco owed no triable duty; district court’s summary judgment affirmed on alternative grounds. |
| Are Crown and Hunt barred by res judicata or repose? | Claims should remain; not identical to prior state-court dismissal. | Precluded by prior state-court order and the repose statute. | Claims barred; res judicata applies and statute of repose bars recovery. |
| Northwest’s contract-of-carriage time-bar issues on summary judgment? | Contract terms should not defeat tort claims. | Contractual time-bar governs; precluded. | Affirmed denial of summary judgment; 28 U.S.C. § 1738 controls; issues resolved on preclusion grounds. |
| Was Northwest entitled to a directed verdict on notice/open-and-obvious? | Evidence shows constructive notice and non-open-and-obvious hazard. | Jury questions on notice and open/obvious condition; standard appropriate. | No error; jury reasonably could find notice and non-open-obvious condition; directed verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renny v. Dep’t of Transp., 734 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. 2007) (GTLA immunities and design defects; design defects barred under government immunity)
- Tellin v. Forsyth Twp., 806 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishes repair/maintenance from design defect under GTLA)
- Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., LLC, 809 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. 2011) (recognizes independent duty to foreseeable third parties despite contract)
- Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assocs., 683 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. 2004) (threshold duty inquiry in tort arising from contract)
- Beauregard-Bezou v. Pierce, 487 N.W.2d 792 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (continuation of work can toll the statute of repose)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co. of Michigan, 586 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (continuation of installation work as continuation of original improvement)
- Matteson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 495 F. App’x 689 (6th Cir. 2012) (spill not open/obvious; genuine issue for jury)
- Bowling v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F. App’x 460 (6th Cir. 2007) (constructive notice issue in premises liability)