*1 Dynamics General SYSTEMS, GENERAL PEOPLE v DYNAMICSLAND INC 20, 1987, January Docket Submitted No. 88066. at Detroit. Decided 20, 1989. March Inc., Systems, charged Land was General involun- Michigan tary and wilful violation of the Occu- pational Safety charges and Health Act. The arose after an employee arrhythmia of the defendant died from cardiac exposure fumes caused Freon from a battle tank he had driving. degrease been Freon had been used to the tank’s way exterior. The deceased had the tank in driven such his head and shoulders had remained outside the tank’s hatch charges against cover. The district court dismissed the defen- Court, Cashen, J., Ray dant. Macomb Circuit The R. affirmed. appealed granted. people The leave Appeals The Court held: dismissing 1. court did not err in the miosha violation facts, charge. allegedly apply The rule did violated the case. dismissing involuntary manslaugh- 2. The court erred in charge. corporation may A guilty ter be crime of man- slaughter. gross negligence The evidence on the issue of conflicting, creating question jury. for the part, part Affirmed reversed in and remanded. J., part. agreed E. C. dissented in He with the majority charge properly that the court dismissed the of mio- believed, however, corporation sha violation. He that a cannot criminally involuntary manslaugh- be liable at common law for charges. ter. affirm He would the dismissal of both Manslaughter Corporations. — — — Homicide Common Law corporation may manslaughter. guilty A be of the crime of Kelley, Frank J. Louis J. General, Attorney Caruso, S. Kli- General, Theodore Solicitor References 2d, Corporations 2141;
Am Jur Homicide 26. § § Corporation’s liability criminal for homicide. 45 ALR4th 1021. 175 op Opinion the Court Attorney General, for the maszewski, Assistant people. Long, Gust, Butzel, Klein Golde, and Michael H. *2 Jr.), (by Hancock, P. Zile, P.C. John
& Van defendant. P.J., C. and E.
Before: Sullivan, Gribbs JJ. Penzien,* Judge laid out P.J. has Sullivan, Penzien matter, need not be recited in
facts agree n, Count his conclusion as to here. We count, dis- should have been which miosha charge, manslaughter however, ais missed. The corporation concludes a different matter. He perpetrator sufficiently "person” to be the is not manslaughter. correctly notes, As he manslaughter in our is not defined stat- crime of but, rather, use com- we are directed to utes mon-law definition.
People Richardson, v 409 Mich reveals, 332 how- 126; 293 Case law NW2d "person” ever, that terms "of another” and interchangeably. example, For have been used involuntary manslaughter killing
is defined as unintentionally. another without malice quoting supra, p People Ryczek, 136, Richardson, v (1923). Similarly, 106, 110; 609 224 Mich 194 NW People 397, Carter, 418; 197 v NW2d Mich (1972), manslaughter as the unlawful defined killing express malice, im- of another without or plied. applied People
By contrast, definition (1886), Stubenvoll, 329, 331; NW "person” the term instead of "another”: uses person injure any Any maim or other who shall Appeals assignment. judge, sitting Court * Circuit on the v General Opinion of the Court person . . . and if death ensue from such wound- ing maiming, deemed person offending or such so shall be
guilty manslaughter. crime of ("A 16:4:03 person See also CJI commits the crime manslaughter if he an involuntary kills individ- .”). . . ual
So be defined in different may ways, killing killing of another or the of a and the person years courts over the have used either term.
Judge limit Penzien would himself to a defini- tion in which term appears. "another” How- ever, if manslaughter be defined in different may ways, killing such as the of another or the killing of a person, and the courts have used historically term, either we do not believe that we should rely on solely a definition containing the term "an- other.” *3 penal "accused,”
Our code "person,” defines similar public private words to include corpo- rations, unless a contrary appears. intention MCL 750.10; MSA 28.200. After examining the common- law manslaughter, definitions of we are unper- suaded that a intention contrary appears. Conse- cannot quently, agree we with the dissenting opin- ion in this respect opposite and reach an conclu- sion: that a corporation a sufficiently "person” to be the perpetrator of a manslaughter. case, court,
In this the district affirmed the by court, circuit refused to bind defendant over on the charge, finding insufficient evidence of gross negligence. review, magistrate’s On the finding will be not disturbed unless there has been People Talley, v an of abuse discretion. 410 Mich 378, 385; Here, NW2d there was conflicting gross negli- evidence on the issue of fact, gence which created a question properly op Opinion the Court magis- not the of fact and the trier resolved Doss, 90; 406 Mich 276 NW2d trate. (1979). addition, found that Frank- In the court district Services at Bryan, Engineering lin Chief of Shop, safety reviewed the Fabrication Prototype here involved covering procedure bulletins for procedure a and instituted supervisor with his contra- testimony This was flushing the tanks. dicted, however, employees two subordinate any safety testified that had not seen who re- any training had they nor received bulletins Therefore, garding the use of Gensolv-D. there was of whether there was ever a conflict on issues procedure safely cleaning instituted out a ever safety tanks and whether bulletins were reviewed. regarding there also a
Similarly, conflict At Dr. to cause of Spitz death. testimony time, an Spitz Dr. held that Lee had had one exposure to Freon. allergic reaction a nonlethal However, toxicologist, Dr. a contradicted Conolly, died idea the victim could have entire that to nonlethal allergic exposure from an reaction of Freon.
Also, most there importantly, was a conflict Dr. had testimony Spitz as to whether did procedures undertaken insure Freon body procedures from the tissues. escape because, specimens placed crucial if the were were baby jars, Sergeant Bour- food as testified geois, may an undeterminable amount Freon opening challenge have escaped, thereby finding in the dosage nonlethal of Freon *4 victim’s of the in the evi- body. Because conflict dence, the district court should have bound charge for trial on defendant over of involun- tary manslaughter. v General by Penzien, Partial Dissent E. C. J. i, manslaughter,
Reversed as to Count and re- n. manded for trial. Affirmed as to Count Gribbs, J., concurred. (dissenting part).
E. C. people The appeal granted leave from an by order of the affirming circuit court the district court’s refusal charges bind over defendant on of involuntary 28.553, manslaughter, 750.321; MCL MSA wilfully violating Michigan Occupational (miosha), Safety 408.1011(a); and Health Act MCL 17.50(ll)(a) MSA 408.1035(5); and MCL MSA 17.50(35)(5). charges out arose of an incident at defen- Line,
dant’s Prototype Shop Fabrication Center Michigan, which resulted in the death of thirty- two-year-old driver/mechanic James Lee. Harvey The Prototype Shop produces Fabrication M-l and M-60 main battle tanks for the United States 15, 1983, Army. On November Lee driving one of the tanks inside when he was overcome by solution, Gensolv-D, fumes from a cleaning used to degrease the interior of the tanks. The medical examiner attributed Lee’s death to cardiac ar- rhythmia caused by exposure to trichlorotrifluoroe- (Freon) thane fumes.1
Freon is used defendant near end manufacturing process degrease the interior of completed tank. The tank is taken outdoors parked on an incline. Freon is then sprayed over all interior surfaces and allowed to drain from the tank overnight. Approximately fifteen 1It continually by should be noted that the term "Freon” was used preliminary witnesses at the examination. "Freon” is the trade name Company utilized E. 1. duPont de & Nemours the chemical trichlorotrifluoroethane. The trichlorotrifluoroethane involved in this which sells this Company case was manfactured Allied Chemical solvent under the trade name "Gensolv-D.” *5 175 Penzien, J. by E. C. Partial Dissent degrease particu-
gallons the used to of Freon were by subsequent simulation A tank Lee drove. lar although expert prosecution that, gallons indicated the Freon highly the volatile, of several liquid the the on floor of in form solvent remain overnight tank, sat even the tank has after provide open maximum ventilation. all hatches degreased tanks, of tasks to drive One Lee’s was overnight, part to another after had sat day question, production facility. in the Lee climbed into the in remained then the On positioned tank and himself that his head and shoulders such a manner engine The cover. was outside hatch The aforementioned simulation started. prosecution’s expert indicated that solvent operator’s in of the nose and mouth levels the area starting engine range in the five were before parts per starting tank, After hundred the level million. parts per to fifteen hundred million.
rose driving exper- particular In the tank Lee was an biological, system nuclear, (nbc) imental chemical begin had been installed the tank wired to engine functioning soon the main as system situation, started. In a combat would protective be hooked to suits worn tank crew- setting, system output In men. hose was a noncombat fitting tank, to a inside the fastened liquid pass air across the effect which was remaining expert’s on floor. Freon the tank that, simulation one minute after start- indicated ing tank, in the of the solvent levels area thirty driver’s mouth and nose rose thousand per Department parts A million. of Labor U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration published safety early material data sheet Freon thousand indicated that parts per levels above one light-headedness, million could lead to giddiness, possible breath, narcosis, shortness v General E. C. Dissent Partial possible high arrhythmias cardiac at concen- safety containing trations. Plant bulletins prepared by safety information had been direc- given only upper tor but limited circulation to management. level that,
Defense witnesses indicated in several years using prob- only solvent, Freon as a experienced light-headedness, giddi- lems ness, peared had been *6 disap- breath,
and shortness of all of which exposure air, within minutes of to fresh long-term and none in of which resulted effects. Dynamics expected No one at General that overex- posure consequences. to Freon would lead to fatal grievances against A number of had been filed plant defendant in another area over the of use accompanying problems light- Freon and the of headedness and shortness breath.
Wayne County Spitz Dr. Coroner Werner V. autopsy conducted the of death as cardiac of Lee and listed the cause
arrhythmia triggered by expo- report sure to Freon-113. The also listed Lee’s obesity possibly contributing to the accident and preliminary Spitz death. At examination, the reit- arrhythmia. erated that Lee died from cardiac Additionally, he testified that the victim had an allergic exposure reaction to a Freon, nonlethal stating that the amount of Freon found Lee’s body only expo- tissues was one-tenth of the lethal prosecution expert, toxicologist, A sure. concluded that second
Spitz drew erroneous conclusions samples Spitz from tissue the he took from Lee. found samples levels of Freon the tissue to be fairly arrhyth- low from this inferred that the hypersensitivity. mia was the result The toxicol- ogist, disagreed stating however, that because highly evaporate upon Freon is exposure volatile it tends to atmosphere; therefore,
to the tissue sam- ples give exposure no solid indicator of the level of 175 E.C. Partial Dissent sensitivity the clue individ-
and thus no to the higher exposure may much have ual. The been samples would indicate. than the tissue preliminary Following testimony given the at findings examination, its court made district found that conclusions of law. The court fact and safety April, 1983, had reviewed defendant government issued the federal bulletins instituted procedure flushing out the tanks supervi- prior 15, 1983, the to and that November Shop Prototype defendant’s Fabrication sors at held procedure they good-faith that belief using adequate prevent to death or were serious harm court know employees. Further, their supervisory personnel that did not
found quantities prior 15, 1983, November flushing in the after of or would remain tank Freon that system transmit from would fumes nbc breathing to the the floor of tank driver’s space. hyper- The district court found that Lee was allergic or to Freon that he died sensitive from an asphyxiation. allergic Freon, reaction not from *7 charges The on to district court went dismiss involuntary manslaughter, citing indepen- of dent four (1) good
grounds: defendant’s faith belief that procedure it had established a safe for the use degreasing Freon in at tanks its Center Line facil- (2) ity, prior 15, 1983, to November defendant had knowledge flushing system no that the used would experimental system to combine with the nbc produce atmosphere outside of the Freon-laden (3) hatch, driver’s defendant did not know or be- overexposure likely lieve that an to Freon was giddiness, dizziness, cause more than short-term nausea, headaches, or associated with occasional (4) consciousness, short-term loss quence the se- events not would have been fatal and General Penzien, E.C. Dissent Partial for the harm but serious have caused not would hypersensitivity Lee, neither defendant which known, anyone and that have else could nor procedures uti- hypersensitivity with combined of Lee. the death lized caused wilfully charge vio- that defendant As for the failing the tank be- to ventilate lated fore Lee miosha charge entered, court dismissed stating his tank since not entered the had that Lee tank while were outside and shoulders head driving breathing further, that he was and, space ten minutes for five to an enclosed within before his distress. appealed people court which to the circuit The against charges defen- the dismissal
affirmed dant. The circuit people failed that the
court found ordinary apparent mind that it was to show that prove likely disas- Freon was the use of an estab- had and that defendant trous to another cleaning procedure which was con- for tank lished sidered ing any result- remove Freon and effective to the estab- circuit court stated fumes. The procedure times used numerous had been lished without serious employees. Finally,
harm to that, the victim’s head found since circuit court tank, the victim outside of the and shoulders were space in defined an enclosed was not within 325.2410(f), thereby requiring AC, dismissal R ii. of Count granted appeal by people from the leave of the district court’s
circuit court’s affirmance charges of invol- defendant on refusal to bind over untary violating wilfully mio- agree but I the district court’s dismissal sha. than those stated i for reasons other Count findings of fact and conclusions court’s the district of law. complaint, defendant was
In i of the Count *8 701 175 710 by E. C. Partial Dissent for the manslaughter involuntary with charged 750.321; Lee. MCL MSA James Harvey death of provides: 28.553 Any person shall commit the crime man- who punishable by
slaughter imprisonment guilty felony of a shall be prison, more than in the state 7,500 by fine of not more than dollars years or both, [Emphasis or at the discretion of the court. added.] the of- statute does not define the common-law incorporates
fense but instead People Richardson, v manslaughter. definition of (1980). 134, 126, 8;n 409 Mich NW2d law, involuntary manslaughter Under the common killing as the of another without malice is defined unintentionally, doing but some unlawful amounting act not to a nor tend- felony naturally harm, great to cause death or or in ing bodily itself, doing some act lawful or negligently by negligent perform legal duty. omission to a See Ryczek, 106; 224 Mich NW (1923). question
The initial which needs to be decided Court, although not addressed below court, court either district or circuit is whether can a under corporation "person” be considered 750.321; MCL MSA 28.553. I do not that a believe corporation sufficiently "person” be thus, of a perpetrator manslaughter, dismissal i appropriate. Count was long recognized
Courts have
the existence of two
natural,
persons,
juristic
types
"juris-
tic” defined as an artificial
created
entity
state,
meaning
and the term "natural
all
person”
Corporate
homicide: The
Anderson,
beings.
human
beings
legal ñctions,
stark realities of artiñciaíl
L
Pepperdine
penal
Rev 367
Our
code
*9
People
711
General
v
Penzien,
E.
J.
C.
Partial Dissent
private
public
to include
"person”
defines
appears.
intention
contrary
unless a
corporations,
contrary
such a
750.10;
28.200.1 believe
MSA
MCL
the common-
examining
from
appears
intention
manslaughter.
law definition
not defined
above, manslaughter
As stated
the
Instead,
directed
use
we are
the statute.
common-law
Under
the
definition.
common-law
manslaughter
as
describing involuntary
definition
another,”
"another”
killing "of
unintentional
is "ad
meaning which
ordinary
given
be
its
must
kind.”
the same
....
ditional, one more
One
ed, pp
College
Dictionary, New
Heritage
American
(1976).
a human
killing
If homicide is
54-55
from be
corporation
a
precludes
being, "another”
the homicide within
ing
perpetrator
Accord,
definition.
manslaughter
meaning of the
Co,
Gas
102
Peoples Natural
see
v
Commonwealth
(Pa
1954),
in Anno:
Co,
reported
L
348
Pittsb
J
homicide, for
liability
criminal
Corporation’s
Co,
Pacific Powder
State v
1021, 1029;
ALR4th,
v
(1961). Contra,
502;
being or en- tunnel, space. closed that, found courts and circuit the district
Both outside were and shoulders Lee’s head since space as an enclosed tank, not within he was 325.2410(f). agree. AC, I R in 1979 defined expert prosecution’s witness, James own Michigan hygienist Novak, Occupational Safety industrial chief Administration, Health and interpretation of the rele- that, under his testified inapplicable rule, to the it was vant administrative open the hatch cover remained in which situation the level of was above the worker’s head tank inte- outside the cover and therefore hatch testimony dispositive. Further find rior. We support such finding the adminis- is shown (entry precedent use of a condition trative rule’s space) ventilation before into an enclosed testing atmosphere need occur. of the court’s conclusion, I the district In would affirm charging complaint defendant with dismissal of a involuntary violating wilfully manslaughter Michigan’s interpret specific provision I of miosha. excluding corporations statute responsibility are not since from criminal *11 meaning "persons” the statute. Addi- within people specific tionally, rule administrative inapplicable violating charged defendant with possible that other case. It is on the facts might provisions violated, how- have been miosha inapplicable to the ever, selected was the one instant situation.
I would affirm.