Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
June 27, 2011

MSC Order List: June 24, 2011

On June 24, 2011, the Supreme Court denied application for leave in two cases. In Harrington v Simpson, No. 142546, Justice Markman dissented from the decision not to hold the matter in abeyance pending oral argument and decision in Hoffner v Lanctoe, 489 Mich __ (2011). In both Harrington and Hoffner, the Court of Appeals held the "open and obvious" doctrine did not bar claims of falls on ice seen by the plaintiff because of findings that the ice was "effectively unavoidable."

In Brown v Blouir, No. 142159, justices wrote several concurrences disagreeing with each other on the scope of the "serious impairment of bodily function" exception to the no-fault act, defining when the injured may sue. Justice Young wrote essentially to urge the Legislature to undo recent Court case law from McCormick v Carrier on what constitutes "serious impairment" and make the exception tighter. Justices Cavanagh disagreed, with Justice Kelly joining, and restated his position that the Court had correctly interpreted the Legislature's meaning of the term. Finally, Justice Markman wrote to urge time for the lower courts to apply McCormick, but noted that he believed the Legislature has already been sufficiently clear in limiting the class of injuries constituting "serious impairment."

The Supreme Court also denied rehearing in two matters and dismissed three cases on stipulation of the parties.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -