Spruytte v. Department of Corrections
| Decision Date | 21 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 77-2347 |
| Citation | 266 N.W.2d 482,82 Mich.App. 145 |
| Parties | Floyd SPRUYTTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. 82 Mich.App. 145, 266 N.W.2d 482 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[82 MICHAPP 146] Shumar & Murphy by Peter H. Shumar, Marquette, for plaintiff-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Michael J. Hodge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.
Before DANHOF, C. J., and BRONSON and LAMBROS, * JJ.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, was transferred from Southern Michigan Prison to Marquette in August, 1973. In preparation for his transfer, plaintiff was required to turn over his personal property to the agents of the defendant. In return, he received a resident personal property receipt which itemized the property he had placed in the custody of the defendant. Plaintiff's property was never returned to him after his arrival at Marquette.
Plaintiff brought suit alleging that the resident personal property receipt constituted a bailment contract and claiming damages of $28,939.84 for breach. Defendant moved for accelerated and summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's complaint was a disguised tort claim and that, as a tort claim, it was subject to the defense of governmental[82 MICHAPP 147] immunity. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant's motion.
The trial court did not err in finding that the receipt did not constitute an express contract since it did not contain any contract terms. Therefore, any bailment relationship must be based on an implied contract. An implied contract, like other contracts, requires mutual assent and consideration. The parties did not appear to have any intention of entering into a contractual relationship since this procedure was required as an aspect of prison management and control. Furthermore, this purported contract lacks consideration since the parties were only performing a preexisting duty. As part of the transfer procedure, plaintiff was required to give up his property to the defendant, and the defendant was required to take it and hold it for him. Even if plaintiff was able to show a bailment contract, the Court could look beyond the contract label to determine whether the substance of the complaint sounded in tort. When significant public policy considerations are involved, the Court is not controlled by the labels chosen by the plaintiff, Greatrex v. Evangelical Deaconess Hospital, 261 Mich. 327, 246 N.W. 137 (1933). In Greatrex, at 332, 246 N.W. 137, the Court quoted with approval the entire opinion of Rudy v. Lakeside Hospital, 115 Ohio St. 539, 155 N.E. 126 (1926), where the Ohio court dismissed a similar action which attempted to circumvent a tort liability defense by pleading an implied contract of bailment.
Subject to certain statutory exceptions, all government agencies shall be immune from tort liability in all cases where the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. Department of Corrections
...a contract based on implication must still satisfy the elements of mutual assent and consideration, Spruytte v. Dep't of Corrections, 82 Mich.App. 145, 266 N.W.2d 482 (1978). In Spruytte, the Court found that no implied bailment contract could be found to exist because (1) there was no mutu......
-
Reyes-Trujillo v. Four Star Greenhouse, Inc.
...Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp. , 256 F.3d 446, 456 (6th Cir. 2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Spruytte v. Dep't of Corr. , 82 Mich. App. 145, 147, 266 N.W.2d 482 (1978) ). "There are two kinds of implied contracts: one implied in fact and the other implied in law. The first does not e......
-
Melvin v. U.S.
...securing the property was a governmental function under Michigan law, thus the Department of Corrections was immune from liability in tort. Id. In Moore, supra, the Tenth Circuit reversed dismissal of Moore's claim for failure to present evidence of negligence and actual loss. Both parties ......
-
Wrench, LLC v. Taco Bell Corp.
...Under Michigan law, "[a]n implied contract, like other contracts, requires mutual assent and consideration." Spruytte v. Dep't of Corr., 266 N.W.2d 482, 483 (Mich. 1978). Michigan draws a clear distinction between contracts implied in fact and contracts implied in The first does not exist, ......