Mary S. Coleman

The case was a wrongful death action arising from a fatal car accident caused by preferential icing on an Interstate-75 bridge, where the approaches were clear and dry but the bridge deck had become icy. The plaintiff claimed the Department of State Highways breached its duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition by using inadequate "watch for ICE on bridge" signs that did not sufficiently alert or instruct motorists. The trial court found the signs inadequate and awarded damages to the plaintiff; the Court of Appeals affirmed the negligence finding but remanded on contributory negligence. The court's core reasoning was that erected traffic signs become part of the highway structure and must effectively warn of hazards under MCL 691.1402, and these signs failed to prompt the necessary driver response of reducing speed.

torts & liability

The case involved a defendant convicted of armed robbery and felony firearm possession after an incident at a dry cleaner where a masked man with a silver pistol took money. The defendant challenged the admission of a pistol found during a warrantless search of his unlocked car parked in his driveway, a post-arrest statement of noninvolvement obtained after he had requested counsel, and the effectiveness of his legal representation. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the car search was valid either due to exigent circumstances from a possible armed accomplice or as a routine inventory prior to impoundment, that the statement was admissible because the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and that counsel was not ineffective under the circumstances of the case.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

These consolidated cases under Michigan's no-fault motor vehicle insurance act concerned claims for noneconomic damages arising from automobile accidents, which require plaintiffs to show a 'serious impairment of body function' under MCL 500.3135. The Supreme Court held that whether an injury meets this threshold is a question of law for the court to decide when the facts regarding the extent of the injuries are undisputed or do not straddle the line of seriousness. In Cassidy v. McGovern, the Court reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict, ruling that complete fractures of both bones in the lower leg constituted a serious impairment as a matter of law because they significantly interfered with the plaintiff's ability to walk for an extended period. In Hermann v. Haney, the Court reversed summary judgment for the defendants, finding that reasonable minds could differ on whether the plaintiff's temporary neck and back pain from bruises and a bump on the head met the threshold, so the issue should go to a jury.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Arenda, the defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving an eight-year-old boy. The trial court granted the prosecutor's motion in limine under Michigan's rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j, to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct with persons other than the defendant, which the defense sought to introduce to explain the child's detailed descriptions of the alleged acts. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the rape-shield law is constitutional and does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, reasoning that the right to cross-examine on irrelevant matters is not absolute and may accommodate other legitimate interests, and that reversal was not required on the facts of this case where the proposed evidence was not shown to meet the statutory exceptions for materiality and probative value.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Holloway challenging his convictions for possession of heroin and cocaine, claiming that tinfoil packets of drugs retrieved from his mouth should have been suppressed because the arrest on a traffic warrant was a pretext and the mouth search violated the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the arrest pursuant to a valid warrant was lawful irrespective of the officers' possible additional motives and that the search was reasonable. The core reasoning centered on the officers' observations of film canisters with drug residue, the defendant's unusual silence and chewing motions, their prior knowledge of the defendant, and exigent circumstances including the risk of evidence destruction and potential harm to the defendant, which justified the brief forcible extraction of the packets. The opinion also addressed application of the plain-view doctrine in the context of the arrest and search.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a patient who signed arbitration agreements with two hospitals upon admission was required to arbitrate a medical malpractice claim against an independent consulting physician who had separately agreed to arbitrate with the hospitals. The patient alleged negligence in failing to monitor for side effects of a tuberculosis drug that allegedly caused vision loss, and the trial court denied the physician's motion to compel arbitration while the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the patient was bound by the agreements. The forms, approved by the state insurance commissioner under the medical malpractice arbitration act, expressly covered disputes with independent staff doctors and consultants who had agreed to arbitrate, and the statute's definitions and provisions extended arbitration to such providers rendering care in the hospital setting.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability