Michelle a Mondak v. Taylor Police Department
330459
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff attended a fireworks display in a City of Taylor park; while police K-9 units pursued a group, one K-9 allegedly bit plaintiff’s leg as officers moved through the crowd. Plaintiff described the incident as brief and accidental and did not seek immediate medical care.
- A few days later plaintiff reported a half-dollar-sized bruise and then sued the City, the Taylor Police Department, Corporal Adamisin, and Officer Barnosky under (1) Michigan’s dog-bite statute (MCL 287.351) and (2) common-law negligence; she later sought to add a gross-negligence claim.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), and that the officers’ conduct did not amount to gross negligence.
- The trial court denied defendants’ motion and allowed plaintiff to amend to add gross-negligence allegations; defendants appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and held that the City, the police department, and the individual officers were entitled to GTLA immunity because plaintiff failed to plead or present an applicable statutory exception for the agencies and failed to show officer gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City and Police Department are immune under GTLA | City/department may be vicariously liable and not immune for dog-bite and negligence claims | City/department perform governmental functions (police) and are immune absent a statutory exception | Held: City and department immune under MCL 691.1407(1); no applicable exception pleaded or shown |
| Whether the dog-bite statute imposes liability on individual officers despite GTLA | Dog-bite statute (MCL 287.351) creates strict liability against dog owners, including officers | GTLA bars tort liability claims against governmental employees/agencies unless an exception applies or gross negligence shown | Held: Dog-bite claim against officers is barred absent gross-negligence allegations; officers immune for strict-liability claim |
| Whether officers’ conduct amounted to gross negligence (defeating employee immunity) | Officers were grossly negligent by running K-9s through a crowded park and failing to realize plaintiff was bitten | Evidence shows trained K-9s, trained handlers, short leashes, choker collars, no prior misconduct — insufficient to show gross negligence | Held: No evidence of conduct “so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern”; officers entitled to immunity |
| Whether permitting amendment to plead gross negligence preserves plaintiff’s claim | Amendment should allow plaintiff to proceed on gross-negligence theory | Even with amendment, record lacks facts to support gross negligence; court may decide immunity on record | Held: Court reached merits — amendment did not salvage claim; summary disposition for defendants appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannay v. Dep’t of Transp., 497 Mich. 45 (2014) (plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity)
- Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich. 186 (2002) (management and control of police department is a governmental function)
- Tate v. Grand Rapids, 256 Mich. App. 656 (2003) (dog-bite statute imposes tort liability subject to GTLA)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (2004) (definition and standard for gross negligence under GTLA)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (gross negligence is substantially more than ordinary negligence; cannot be presumed)