Massey v. Department of Corrections
| Decision Date | 07 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 102960,104008 |
| Parties | Brian David MASSEY, a minor, through his guardian, Roy O. Yackle, Sr., and Roy O. Yackle, Sr., Administrator of the Estate of Jean Ann Andrews, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, and Michigan Parole Board and the Deputy Director for Field Services of the Michigan Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Brian David MASSEY, a minor, through his guardian, Roy O. Yackle, Sr., and Roy O. Yackle, Sr., Administrator of the Estates of Jean Ann Young Andrews, Tamara J. Massey, and Tiffany D. Massey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD and Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Gruel, Mills, Nims & Pylman by Norman H. Pylman and Brion J. Brooks, Grand Rapids, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and A. Michael Leffler and Ronald W. Emery, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellees.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and MacKENZIE and CAVANAGH, JJ.
Plaintiffs, in this consolidated appeal, challenge the trial court's orders granting summary disposition of their negligence claims for failure to state a claim against the Department of Corrections. The Deputy Director of Field Services for the Department of Corrections and the Michigan Parole Board. Plaintiffs contend that, by virtue of the special relationship between the injured parties and a third party, defendants were under an affirmative duty and that the breach of this affirmative duty caused them damage. We disagree and affirm.
These lawsuits were brought against the defendants for the injuries sustained by Brian Massey and for the murders of his mother and two sisters by David Leroy Andrews, an escaped prisoner from the Kinross Correctional Facility. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to warn the victims of Andrews' history of criminal sexual conduct when defendants became aware of his presence in Kansas and in failing to fulfill their duty to regain control of Andrews by extradition or to retain control of Andrews while he was in their custody.
The law will hold a defendant liable for his negligent conduct only if, because of a special relationship between the defendant and the injured party or the defendant and a third party, defendant is deemed to owe the injured party a duty of due care. Duvall v. Goldin, 139 Mich.App. 342, 347, 362 N.W.2d 275 (1984), lv. den. 422 Mich. 976 (1985). Duty is thus based on whether this special relationship gives rise to any legal obligation on the defendant's part for the benefit of another. Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 439, 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977), reh. den. 401 Mich. 951 (1977). Where the duty of a public agency or official arises from his official authority, the duty is for the benefit of the public at large. Massey v. Grant, 679 F.Supp. 711, 713 (WD Mich, 1988), aff'd 875 F.2d 865 (CA 6, 1989), citing Gerneth v. Detroit, 465 F.2d 784 (CA 6, 1972); also see Hobrla v. Glass, 143 Mich.App. 616, 372 N.W.2d 630 (1985), and Zavala v. Zinser, 123 Mich.App. 352, 333 N.W.2d 278 (1983), aff'd sub nom Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641 (1984). Such a public duty is owed to a specific individual only when performance would affect the individual in a manner different in kind from the way performance would affect the public. Gerneth, supra at 787.
Plaintiffs allege that the injured parties they represent were in a special relationship with Andrews and, from this relationship, a duty of due care could be imposed on the defendants. We do not agree. The requisite special relationship...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusements, Inc.
...under MCR 2.118(C)(8) (failure to state a claim). See Maiden, supra at 119, 597 N.W.2d 817; Eason, supra; Massey v. Dep't of Corrections, 182 Mich.App. 238, 242, 451 N.W.2d 869 (1990). First, with respect to the state agency defendants, it appears that plaintiff did not raise on appeal the ......
-
White v. Beasley
...Dir., 194 Mich.App. 446, 487 N.W.2d 799 (1992); Jones v. Wilcox, 190 Mich.App. 564, 476 N.W.2d 473 (1991); Massey v. Corrections Dep't, 182 Mich.App. 238, 451 N.W.2d 869 (1990); Makris v. Grosse Pointe Park, 180 Mich.App. 545, 448 N.W.2d 352 (1989); Simonds v. Tibbitts, 165 Mich.App. 480, 4......
-
Marcelletti v. Bathani
...relationship must exist between the defendants and the victims or the defendants and the third parties. Massey v. Dep't of Corrections, 182 Mich.App. 238, 241, 451 N.W.2d 869 (1990). No Michigan cases define a test to set forth the requirements of a special relationship. Harrison, supra, 19......
-
Harrison v. Director of Dept. of Corrections
...a public official arises from his official authority, the duty is for the benefit of the public at large. Massey v. Dep't of Corrections, 182 Mich.App. 238, 241, 451 N.W.2d 869 (1990). A duty is owed to a specific individual only when performance would affect the individual in a manner diff......