Simonds v. Tibbitts
| Decision Date | 26 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 89016 |
| Parties | Barbara L. SIMONDS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian Scott Buist, Deceased, and Barbara L. Simonds, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dale TIBBITTS and the Village of Stockbridge, Defendants-Appellees. 165 Mich.App. 480, 419 N.W.2d 5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[165 MICHAPP 481] Denfield, Timmer & Taylor by James A. Timmer and John W. Cotner, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Taylor, Carter, Butterfield, Riseman, Clark & Howell, P.C. by Carl M. Riseman, Lapeer, for Dale Tibbitts and the Village of Stockbridge.
Joseph K. Cox, Webberville, of counsel, for Dale Tibbitts.
Before BEASLEY, P.J., and CYNAR and ANDERSON, * JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of summary disposition, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), which dismissed her suit with prejudice. We affirm.
Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged that on October 10, 1978, Brian Scott Buist, plaintiff's [165 MICHAPP 482] husband, was driving west on M-106 near the intersection of M-106 and Williamsville Road in Livingston County, Michigan. At the same time, Lyndon Risner was driving east on M-106. Risner's car crossed the center line and collided head-on with Buist's vehicle, killing Buist. Shortly before the accident, defendant Dale Tibbitts, the Village of Stockbridge Police Chief and an Ingham County deputy sheriff, had encountered Risner and Risner's car in a ditch on M-106. Tibbitts allegedly observed that Risner was visibly intoxicated. However, Tibbitts did not arrest or detain Risner or disable Risner's car in any way.
Plaintiff's claim alleged that Tibbitts had a duty to arrest Risner or otherwise prevent him from driving, that Tibbitts breached that duty, and that his breach was the proximate cause of the accident. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendant Village of Stockbridge, as Tibbitts' employer, was also liable for the death of Buist.
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal basis of a complaint. Unless a complaint is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery, a motion under this subrule should be denied. Hobrla v. Glass, 143 Mich.App. 616, 623, 372 N.W.2d 630 (1985).
The trial judge dismissed plaintiff's complaint and found that Tibbitts' duty was to the public at large and not to any individual. We hold that Tibbitts had no legal duty to Buist. The court properly dismissed the action.
The elements of an action for negligence are: (1) duty, (2) general standard of care, (3) specific standard of care, (4) cause in fact, (5) proximate cause, and (6) damage. Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 437, 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977), reh. den. 401 Mich. 951 (1977). Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the question[165 MICHAPP 483] of duty is one solely for the court to decide. Id. Duty is essentially a question whether the relationship between the actor and the injured person gives rise to any legal obligation on the actor's part for the benefit of the injured person.
It is clear that a police officer's duty to preserve the peace is owed to the general public, not to any one individual. Maksinczak v. Salliotte, 140 Mich.App. 537, 540, 364 N.W.2d 737 (1985). The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint citing this "public duty" doctrine. Plaintiff argues that defendant Tibbitts' observation of Risner in an intoxicated state created a "special relationship" between defendant and the motoring public, including Buist, under which defendant owed a special duty to any motorist injured by Risner. For support, plaintiff cites the officer's statutory power to place a publicly incapacitated person under arrest, M.C.L. Sec. 333.6501; M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(6501), and power to arrest a motorist who causes an accident while driving intoxicated, M.C.L. Sec. 257.625; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325.
We note that one state has adopted plaintiff's argument that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Beasley
...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, 419 N.W.2d 5 (1987); Hobrla v. Glass, 143 Mich.App. 616, 372 N.W.2d 630 (1985); Rose v. Mackie, 22 Mich.App. 463, 177 N.W.2d 633 (1970).8......
-
Markis v. City of Grosse Pointe Park
...duty than that owed the public at large. See Gilchrist v. City of Livonia, 599 F.Supp. 260 (E.D.Mich.1984), and Simonds v. Tibbitts, 165 Mich.App. 480, 483, 419 N.W.2d 5 (1987). Accordingly, plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 on which relief could be granted. All de......
-
Flones v. Dalman
...not to any one individual. Eichhorn v. Lamphere School Dist., 166 Mich.App. 527, 545, 421 N.W.2d 230 (1988); Simonds v. Tibbitts, 165 Mich.App. 480, 483, 419 N.W.2d 5 (1987). Here, defendant's duty to the public is to detect and investigate crime; no duty is owed to plaintiffs as individual......
-
ABB Paint Finishing, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa
...169 Mich.App. 829, 831, 426 N.W.2d 819 (1988); Smith v. Pontiac, 169 Mich.App. 559, 561, 426 N.W.2d 704 (1988); Simonds v. Tibbitts, 165 Mich.App. 480, 481, 419 N.W.2d 5 (1987). In the only case in which this issue was expressly addressed, Gardner v. Stodgel, 175 Mich.App. 241, 437 N.W.2d 2......