Terry v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 18 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 186535,195210 |
| Parties | Constance TERRY, Latonya Burkes, a/k/a Latonya Burkes, Emmet Burkes, and Helen Burkes, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee, and General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Charles Blunt, Curtis Thompson, Carl Webster, Stanley Knox, Darrell Patterson, Cadillac Motor Car Division, LC Taylor Ambulance Service, Stewart McLaren, and Barbara Michaels, Defendants. Constance TERRY, Latonya Burkes, a/k/a Latonya Burkes, Emmet Burkes, Co-Conservator, and Helen Burkes, Co-Conservator, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant, and General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Charles R. Blunt, Curtis Thompson, Carl Webster, Stanley Knox, Darrell Patterson, Cadillac Motor Car Division, LC Taylor Ambulance Service, Stewart McLaren and Barbara Michaels, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
David A. Robinson, Cornelius Pitts and Elaine Carlis, Detroit, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
William J. Liedel, P.C. by William J. Liedel and Patricia M. Jason, Detroit, for City of Detroit.
Feeney Kellett Wienner & Bush by S. Thomas Wienner, Peter M. Kellett, and David N. Goltz, Bloomfield Hills, for General Motors Corp.
Before YOUNG, P.J., and GRIBBS and STANLEY J. LATREILLE *, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, defendant General Motors Corporation (GM) in Docket No. 186535 appeals by leave granted the circuit court order denying in part its motion for summary disposition in this negligence action. 1 Defendant City of Detroit in Docket No. 195210 appeals by leave granted the circuit court order denying its motion for summary disposition. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
On October 26, 1992, at approximately 8:15 p.m., plaintiffs LaTanya Burkes and Constance Terry were driving through the intersection at Puritan and Freeland in Detroit when their vehicle was struck by a stolen Cadillac Seville being driven at a high rate of speed by defendant Charles Blunt. At the time of the crash, defendant Blunt was being pursued by Detroit Police Officers Darrell Patterson and Carl Webster in a fully marked Detroit Police car. The officers were attempting to cite defendant Blunt for running a red light, although Officer Patterson recognized defendant Blunt from three previous incidents in which Blunt was seen driving other Cadillacs, one of which also had been stolen. The officers pursued the vehicle at speeds of at least fifty to sixty miles an hour through a residential area where the speed limit was twenty-five miles an hour. The Cadillac reached estimated speeds of seventy to eighty miles an hour. The pursuit continued until Blunt disregarded a red traffic light and struck plaintiffs' vehicle.
Blunt had stolen the Cadillac at approximately 2:45 p.m. from a guarded and secured Cadillac Motor Car Division garage located on Clark Street in Detroit. The vehicle had been assigned to a GM employee and was parked in his assigned parking space in the basement of the garage. The employee testified in his deposition that he routinely left the keys in the unlocked vehicle to facilitate washing and refueling and that he had received oral instructions on two or three occasions to leave the keys in the ignition in case of an emergency. It is undisputed that seven other GM vehicles had been stolen from the Clark Street facility during the two months preceding the instant theft, albeit from the guarded and secured executive garage located across the street. 2
Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit alleging, among other things, that GM owed and breached duties to take reasonable measures to prevent the theft of the vehicle. Plaintiffs also alleged that the officers' conduct constituted "gross negligence, deliberate indifference, willful and wanton conduct, callous reckless, wanton negligence and deliberate and intentional disregard of their operational duties as police officers." Plaintiffs asserted that the City of Detroit was vicariously liable for the conduct of the officers and that it owed and breached duties to properly "train, retain, discipline and/or supervise [the officers] in the proper execution of their law enforcement assignments."
GM filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that it did not owe a duty to plaintiffs because (1) no special relationship existed, (2) the risk of harm was not unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) strong policy reasons existed for not imposing a duty under the circumstances. GM also argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether GM's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries. The City of Detroit moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). It argued that it was entitled to governmental immunity because (1) there was no evidence that the officers operated their vehicle negligently and (2) the officers' conduct was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries.
The trial court denied GM's motion, determining that GM owed plaintiffs a duty. Relying on Buczkowski v. McKay, 441 Mich. 96, 490 N.W.2d 330 (1992), and Thomas v. Eppinga, 179 Mich.App. 366, 445 N.W.2d 234 (1989), the court reasoned that GM never intended that a customer operate the vehicle; consequently, no economic interest was furthered by the theft. The court held that it was foreseeable that a thief would attempt to elude the police, and that GM could have easily prevented the problem by changing its policy about leaving keys in the ignition. The court further held that there were special circumstances warranting the imposition of a duty, namely, the large number of previous thefts and the small burden in remedying the problem. Therefore, the trial court stated that summary disposition should be denied.
The trial court also denied the City of Detroit's motion for summary disposition sought on the basis of governmental immunity. The court reasoned as follows:
[T]here is ample evidence to go to a jury on the issue of negligence.
The nature of the violation, the time of night, the possible speed here, about the eighty-four miles an hour, the driving in a residential area, the expert testimony with regard to the obligation of an officer to consider discontinuing the chase under these circumstances, all of these are facts that should clearly go to a jury.
We review the trial court's denial of summary disposition de novo to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Stehlik v. Johnson (On Rehearing), 206 Mich.App. 83, 85, 520 N.W.2d 633 (1994). For the reasons stated below, we conclude that GM did not owe a duty of care to plaintiffs and that it was therefore entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law. However, we affirm the trial court's decision denying the City of Detroit's motion for summary disposition.
GM argues in Docket No. 186535 that the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that it owed a duty to plaintiffs. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree.
In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove: "(1) that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant breached that duty; (3) that the defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages." Baker v. Arbor Drugs, Inc., 215 Mich.App. 198, 203, 544 N.W.2d 727 (1996). Duty is an obligation that the defendant has to the plaintiff to avoid negligent conduct. Id. Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court. Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648, 655, 532 N.W.2d 842 (1995). If a court determines as a matter of law that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff, summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Dykema v. Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc., 196 Mich.App. 6, 9, 492 N.W.2d 472 (1992).
In determining whether a duty exists, courts look to different variables, including the (1) foreseeability of the harm, (2) degree of certainty of injury, (3) existence of a relationship between the parties involved, (4) closeness of connection between the conduct and injury, (5) moral blame attached to the conduct, (6) policy of preventing future harm, and (7) the burdens and consequences of imposing a duty and the resulting liability for breach. Buczkowski, supra at 101, 490 N.W.2d 330, citing Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.), § 53, p. 359, n. 24; Baker, supra. The mere fact that an event may be foreseeable is insufficient to impose a duty upon the defendant. Buczkowski, supra at 101, 490 N.W.2d 330. As the Court in Buczkowski explained:
Duty is actually a " 'question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff' and concerns 'the problem of the relation between individuals which imposes upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other.' " " 'Duty' is not sacrosanct in itself, but is only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the plaintiff is entitled to protection." [Id. at 100-101, 490 N.W.2d 330 (citations omitted).]
Thus, whether GM had a duty to protect plaintiffs "depends on the relationship between the parties, the nature and foreseeability of the risk, and any other considerations that may be relevant on the issue." Id. at 103, 490 N.W.2d 330.
At its core, the issue presented by plaintiffs' negligence claim against GM is whether, as a matter of policy, this Court should impose a duty on GM to protect remote and unknown third persons from the criminal acts of others. Plaintiffs cite Thomas, supra, for the proposition that " '[s]pecial circumstances which impose a greater potentiality of foreseeable risk or more serious injury, or require a lesser burden of preventative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp.
...257 (2000). Michigan also recognizes that multiple causes can be substantial factors leading to injury. Terry v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich.App. 418, 430-31, 573 N.W.2d 348, 355 (1997). A jury must decide that issue in this Defendant also claims that this Court failed to apply Mich. Comp. La......
-
Graves v. Warner Bros.
...for breach. [Krass, supra at 668-669, 593 N.W.2d 578]. See also Buczkowski, supra at 100-101, 490 N.W.2d 330; Terry v. Detroit, 226 Mich.App. 418, 424, 573 N.W.2d 348 (1997). Of particular import to the present appeal is the principle that, in general, there is no legal duty obligating one ......
-
Cipri v. BELLINGHAM FOODS, INC.
...future harm, and (7) the burdens and consequences of imposing a duty and the resulting liability for breach. [Terry v. Detroit, 226 Mich. App. 418, 424, 573 N.W.2d 348 (1997).] "The mere fact that an event may be foreseeable is insufficient to impose a duty upon the defendant"; rather, the ......
-
Zine v. Chrysler Corp.
...it back and refund the purchase price (count II). Count VII included the same allegations pleaded by Zine relative to the lemon law.3 The Terry case was assigned to the same trial court to which the Zine case was assigned, and the Terrys subsequently moved to consolidate their case with the......