Michigan Legal Statutes
Reference Guide
A comprehensive index of Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) used in personal injury and police brutality cases — with plain-language explanations written for real people, not law school professors. Each statute is explained by the attorneys who use it in court every day.
These statutes from the Michigan Compiled Laws govern personal injury litigation — from the time limits on filing your case to the rules for calculating and capping damages. We also summarize key federal motor carrier (FMCSA / 49 CFR) rules used in truck crash cases. Click any entry to see a plain-language explanation of how it applies to your case.
Statutes of Limitations
12 statutes"A person shall not commence an action alleging medical malpractice against a health professional or health facility unless the person has given the health professional or health facility written notice under this section not less than 182 days before the action is commenced."Read Full Statute
Before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Michigan, you must send a formal Notice of Intent (NOI) to every defendant and wait 182 days. This waiting period allows the parties to evaluate the claim and potentially settle before litigation begins.
If you skip the NOI or file suit before the 182 days expire, your case can be dismissed. This is one of the most common ways malpractice claims are lost before they even start.
We draft and serve compliant NOIs immediately upon intake so no time is wasted and the clock is managed correctly from day one.
"If a person dies as a result of a wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, the personal representative of the estate of the deceased person may maintain an action for damages against the person who is liable for the wrongful act, neglect, or fault."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Wrongful Death Act allows the estate of a person killed by someone else's negligence or wrongful act to bring a civil lawsuit for damages. The law defines who may recover, what damages are available, and how the money is distributed.
If you lost a family member due to negligence, this statute is the legal foundation of your claim. It allows recovery for loss of financial support, loss of companionship, and funeral expenses.
We have obtained some of Michigan's largest wrongful death verdicts under this statute, including a $5,000,000 verdict in a semi-truck wrongful death case.
"A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section."Read Full Statute
This is Michigan's primary personal injury statute of limitations. Most personal injury claims must be filed within 3 years of the date of the injury. Medical malpractice claims have a shorter 2-year window.
If you wait too long to hire a lawyer, your case may be permanently barred — no matter how strong your evidence is. The clock typically starts on the date you were injured.
We immediately calendar all limitation deadlines on intake and aggressively investigate before they expire.
"All other personal actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the claim first accrued or within such shorter period as the statute of limitations may provide."Read Full Statute
For personal injury claims that don't fit a specific category, Michigan imposes a 6-year catch-all limitation period. This is a backstop for unusual or novel tort claims.
Rarely relied on in standard injury cases, but important for unusual claims where the specific limitation period is unclear.
Used as a fallback argument when insurance companies challenge the timeliness of an unusual claim.
"Except as otherwise provided, the period of limitations runs from the time the claim accrues. The claim accrues at the time provided in sections 5829 to 5838, and in cases not covered by these sections, at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results."Read Full Statute
This statute defines when a legal claim 'accrues' — meaning when the statute of limitations clock starts ticking. In most cases, the claim accrues on the date the wrong was done, not when the victim discovered it.
In hidden-injury cases (like toxic exposure or medical errors), this definition can be pivotal. Your lawyer must establish exactly when your claim accrued to determine the filing deadline.
We use accrual arguments strategically to preserve claims that insurers argue are time-barred.
"An action alleging medical malpractice shall not be commenced later than 2 years after the claim first accrued, or later than 2 years after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. In no event may an action be commenced more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim."Read Full Statute
For malpractice claims, the statute of limitations begins on the date the last act of negligence occurred, or when the patient should have discovered the injury — whichever is later. The maximum is 6 years from the negligent act.
The 'discovery rule' built into this statute can extend your filing window if your injury wasn't immediately apparent.
We apply the discovery rule to argue for later accrual dates when clients come to us after a delayed diagnosis of malpractice injuries.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an action alleging medical malpractice may not be brought more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim."Read Full Statute
Even with the discovery rule, Michigan imposes an absolute maximum of 6 years for medical malpractice claims (period of repose). After 6 years from the negligent act, the claim is barred regardless of when the injury was discovered.
If your injury was caused by a medical error more than 6 years ago, your claim may be permanently barred — even if you only recently found out. Act quickly.
We evaluate every malpractice case immediately for repose issues to avoid losing viable claims.
"An action to recover damages for personal injury or property damage arising from a defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property shall be brought not later than 10 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement."Read Full Statute
Claims for defective construction or design of buildings must be filed within 10 years of the substantial completion of the improvement to real property.
Relevant in premises liability and construction accident cases where the defect was built into the structure long ago.
Analyzed in slip and fall and construction defect cases to determine whether the property owner has a repose defense.
"If the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action is under 18 years of age, insane, or imprisoned at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed to enter or bring the action although the period of limitations has run."Read Full Statute
Michigan's statute of limitations is paused ('tolled') while a potential plaintiff is a minor or is legally insane. The clock doesn't start for a child until they turn 18.
If a child was injured, they have until age 19 (3 years after turning 18) to file in most cases — but there are exceptions for medical malpractice involving minors.
We use tolling to protect children's claims when parents delay in seeking legal help.
"If a person dies before the period of limitations has run or within 30 days after the period has run, an action which survives by law may be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person at any time within 2 years after letters of authority are issued although the period of limitations has run."Read Full Statute
If a person dies while their personal injury claim is pending (or within 30 days of the injury), the estate gets a fresh 2-year window to file a wrongful death action even if the original limitations period has run.
Protects families who lose a loved one before a lawsuit could be filed. The clock restarts, giving the estate time to regroup and pursue the claim.
Applied frequently in cases where the victim survived initially but later died from their injuries.
"If a person who is or may be liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the claim, the action may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the person who is entitled to bring the action discovers, or should have discovered, the existence of the claim or the identity of the person who is liable for the claim, although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations."Read Full Statute
If a defendant fraudulently concealed the cause of action, the statute of limitations is tolled until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the fraud. The plaintiff then has 2 years from that discovery.
Critical in cases where a company, employer, or government agency hid evidence of wrongdoing. The clock didn't run while they were hiding the truth.
Used in cases involving employer cover-ups, destruction of evidence, or deliberate misrepresentation of injury causes.
"The statute of limitations or repose is tolled when: (a) The party commences an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. (b) The party files a complaint and the summons is served within the time set in this subdivision. (c) [In medical malpractice actions,] the applicable notice period under section 2912b begins."Read Full Statute
The limitations period may also be paused when the defendant is absent from Michigan, when the plaintiff files a complaint and has it served within 90 days, or during the 182-day NOI period in malpractice cases.
Multiple tolling triggers exist that can preserve a claim that appears time-barred at first glance. Always consult an attorney before assuming your deadline has passed.
We analyze all tolling provisions before accepting or declining any case with potential limitations issues.
General Negligence & Liability
9 statutes"In an action for libel or slander, the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for actual damages unless the plaintiff proves the defendant acted with actual malice or gross negligence."Read Full Statute
Governs defamation claims. Limits exemplary (punitive-style) damages in libel and slander actions and requires proof of actual malice or negligence depending on the plaintiff's status.
Relevant in employment and civil rights cases where an employer or officer made false public statements about a plaintiff.
Referenced in employment law and civil rights cases involving reputational harm.
"In an action based on malpractice, the plaintiff shall show that the defendant negligently performed, or negligently failed to perform, a professional act, and that the negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury."Read Full Statute
Establishes the framework for professional negligence claims in Michigan. Requires proof that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care for their profession.
The foundation for any medical, legal, or other professional malpractice claim.
Applied in medical malpractice and professional liability cases throughout the firm's history.
"'Product liability action' means an action based on a legal or equitable theory of liability brought for the death of a person or for injury to a person or damage to property caused by or resulting from the production of a product."Read Full Statute
Defines key terms for Michigan product liability law, including 'product,' 'manufacturer,' 'seller,' and 'harm.' These definitions determine who can be sued and for what.
Critical in any case involving a defective product — from a defective car component to a dangerous medication.
Used to identify all potentially liable parties in defective product injury cases.
"In a product liability action, a product shall not be presumed to be defective solely because the product was involved in the accident or occurrence. A product is not defective if the product conforms to an applicable standard required by federal or state law."Read Full Statute
Sets the standards for proving product liability in Michigan. Notably, FDA approval of a product creates a presumption that it is not defective — a significant shield for pharmaceutical companies.
Drug and medical device manufacturers often rely on FDA-compliance defenses. Our attorneys know how to challenge this presumption.
We use expert witnesses and FDA compliance records to overcome the statutory presumption in drug and device cases.
"In an action for a product liability claim, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed the following amounts, as adjusted annually for inflation... [see current statutory amounts]."Read Full Statute
Michigan limits noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) in product liability cases. The cap adjusts annually for inflation.
Your attorney must know this cap exists when evaluating the value of your product liability case so settlement offers can be properly assessed.
We document every element of economic damages — lost wages, medical bills, future care — to maximize recovery when the noneconomic cap applies.
"In a product liability action, a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the specific act, omission, or failure, the aspect of the product that allegedly caused the harm was in compliance with a standard relevant to the event causing the death or injury."Read Full Statute
Manufacturers and sellers can defend product liability claims by showing the product was misused, altered, or that the plaintiff was comparatively at fault. If the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover.
Defendants almost always raise comparative fault in product cases. You need an attorney who can rebut these defenses with expert evidence.
We retain product engineers and safety experts to demonstrate proper product use and defeat misuse defenses.
"In an action for damages alleging negligence or malpractice by a licensed professional, the court shall determine whether the proposed expert testimony or evidence is admissible. Expert testimony is admissible only if it meets the following criteria: (a) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data. (b) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. (c) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."Read Full Statute
Michigan courts apply Daubert-based standards to determine whether expert witness testimony is admissible. The expert's methodology must be scientifically reliable and relevant to the case.
Expert witnesses are required in most serious injury and malpractice cases. The admissibility of your expert's opinion can make or break your case.
We work with credentialed, trial-tested experts whose methodologies are specifically selected to survive Daubert challenges.
"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to abrogate the existing common law concerning the duty of care owed by a possessor of land or by any other person."Read Full Statute
This provision preserves certain common-law defenses in negligence cases, including the 'open and obvious' doctrine — the argument that a hazardous condition was so visible that the plaintiff should have avoided it.
Property owners in slip and fall cases frequently use the open and obvious defense. Michigan courts have narrowed it significantly, and experienced counsel can often defeat it.
We document the specific conditions at the time of injury to challenge whether a hazard was truly open and obvious and whether 'special aspects' existed.
"Each officer and employee of a governmental agency... is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer, employee, or member while in the course of employment or service... if... (c) The officer's, employee's, member's, or volunteer's conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage."Read Full Statute
Government employees (police officers, city workers, etc.) are individually immune from negligence claims unless their conduct was grossly negligent and the proximate cause of the injury.
This makes suing government employees significantly harder than suing private parties. You must prove gross negligence — a much higher standard than ordinary negligence.
We build gross negligence arguments using use-of-force policies, training records, and expert testimony on officer conduct.
Comparative Fault
5 statutes"It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for personal injury that the plaintiff, at the time the cause of action arose, was operating a vehicle... while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, or a combination of both, and as a result of that conduct, the plaintiff was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event that gave rise to the action."Read Full Statute
If a plaintiff was 50% or more at fault due to intoxication or controlled substance use at the time of injury, they are barred from recovery entirely.
Insurance companies will investigate whether you were drinking before an accident. Even a minor amount of fault assigned to you can reduce or eliminate your recovery.
We carefully review all evidence and counter intoxication arguments with accident reconstruction and medical evidence.
"In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each defendant shall be allocated to each party in direct proportion to the party's percentage of fault. In determining the percentages of fault, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of each person, regardless of whether the person is, or could have been, named as a party to the action."Read Full Statute
Michigan uses a modified comparative fault system. The jury assigns a percentage of fault to every party — including the plaintiff, defendants, and even non-parties. Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and you cannot recover at all if you are more than 50% at fault.
If you are found 30% at fault, your total damages are reduced by 30%. If you are found 51% at fault, you get nothing.
We work to minimize your assigned fault percentage through expert testimony, evidence preservation, and aggressive cross-examination.
"If a plaintiff has received or is entitled to receive benefits under a policy of insurance as a result of damages for which the plaintiff seeks to recover in a personal injury action, the amount of those benefits shall be deducted from any award of damages."Read Full Statute
If any defendant settles before trial, the settlement amount is set off against the total verdict. This prevents double recovery from the same harm.
Settlement strategy in multi-defendant cases requires careful analysis of how setoffs will affect the final net recovery.
We structure multi-party settlements strategically to maximize what our clients actually take home.
"If the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault under the comparative fault principles applicable in this state, the plaintiff shall not recover noneconomic damages. The percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff shall reduce the plaintiff's recovery of economic damages proportionately."Read Full Statute
Once the jury assigns fault percentages, this statute dictates how the damage award is mathematically reduced. Noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Even a 10% finding of fault against you reduces your pain and suffering award by 10%. Every percentage point matters.
We vigorously contest fault allocations through expert testimony and evidence.
"In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death involving fault of more than 1 person, the court shall instruct the jury to answer special interrogatories indicating the percentage of the total fault of all persons that contributed to the death or injury, including each plaintiff, defendant, third-party defendant, and identified nonparty."Read Full Statute
Michigan follows several liability: each defendant only pays their own percentage of fault, not the full judgment. However, if a defendant cannot pay their share, their uncollectable portion may be reallocated to the plaintiff and remaining defendants.
If you win a large verdict but a defendant is uninsured or bankrupt, you may not collect the full amount. Identifying all insured defendants from the start is critical.
We identify all potentially liable parties and all available insurance coverage before trial to protect full recovery.
Wrongful Death
5 statutes"A retail licensee shall not sell or furnish alcoholic liquor to a person who is visibly intoxicated. A licensee who violates this section is liable to an injured person for damages caused by the intoxicated person, if the intoxication is a proximate cause of the injury."Read Full Statute
Bars and liquor stores in Michigan can be held civilly liable for injuries caused by a person they sold alcohol to, provided the person was visibly intoxicated or was a minor at the time of purchase.
If a drunk driver who hit you was just served at a bar, the bar may share legal liability. This creates an additional source of insurance coverage.
We investigate all alcohol sales preceding an accident and pursue Dramshop liability where applicable to maximize available insurance coverage.
"Except as otherwise provided, all claims and demands whatsoever, and all rights and causes of actions, whether arising on contract or otherwise, shall survive and may be prosecuted or defended by or against the personal representative of a deceased person in the same manner as if that person had not died."Read Full Statute
When a person dies, their existing personal injury claim does not die with them — it survives and can be brought by their estate. This is separate from the Wrongful Death Act.
The estate can recover for the decedent's pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages before death. This is often in addition to the wrongful death claim.
We always assert both survival and wrongful death claims when a client dies, to maximize the total recovery for the family.
"If a person dies as a result of a wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, the personal representative of the estate of the deceased person may maintain an action for damages against the person who is liable for the wrongful act, neglect, or fault. The action shall be commenced within 3 years after the death of the person."Read Full Statute
Michigan's primary wrongful death law. Allows the estate of a deceased person to sue for economic losses (financial support, services), noneconomic losses (loss of companionship, society, grief), and funeral expenses. The case is filed by the personal representative of the estate.
The foundation of any death case in Michigan. Recoverable damages include loss of the deceased's projected lifetime earnings and the emotional devastation suffered by surviving family members.
We have won some of Michigan's largest wrongful death verdicts, including a $5,000,000 verdict in a semi-truck wrongful death case.
"If a person dies before the period of limitations has run or within 30 days after the period has run, an action which survives by law may be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person at any time within 2 years after letters of authority are issued although the period of limitations has run."Read Full Statute
Extends the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims. If a person dies, their estate has 2 years from the date of death to file the wrongful death claim, even if the underlying personal injury limitations period has already run.
Protects families from losing their claim simply because death occurred after a limitations period had technically expired.
We apply this extension in cases where death follows a long illness or delayed complication from an initial injury.
"In an action for medical malpractice, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $280,000.00, unless the plaintiff suffered either of the following permanent harms, in which case the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $500,000.00: (a) death. (b) permanent loss of or damage to a reproductive organ... [amounts adjusted annually for inflation]."Read Full Statute
When wrongful death results from medical malpractice, noneconomic damages (like loss of companionship) are capped at a set amount that adjusts annually. In 2024, the cap is approximately $500,000 in standard cases.
This cap specifically limits what families can recover for the emotional devastation of losing a loved one to medical error. Economic damages (lost income, medical bills) remain uncapped.
We maximize economic damage projections using forensic economists and life-care planners to overcome noneconomic caps.
No-Fault Insurance & PIP
10 statutes"The owner of a motor vehicle shall be liable for any injury occasioned by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle, whether the negligence consists of a violation of the provisions of the statutes of this state, or in the failure to observe such ordinary care and caution as the rules of the common law require."Read Full Statute
In Michigan, the owner of a vehicle can be held liable for injuries caused by someone operating their vehicle with their express or implied consent.
If you were hit by a vehicle driven by someone who borrowed it, you may have a claim against both the driver AND the vehicle owner.
We investigate vehicle ownership and consent in every car accident case to identify all liable parties.
"The owner of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance, property protection insurance, and residual liability insurance as required under this chapter or equivalent coverage."Read Full Statute
All Michigan vehicle owners must carry no-fault insurance. The law requires minimum levels of Personal Injury Protection (PIP), property damage, and residual liability coverage.
If you were uninsured at the time of an accident, you may be barred from collecting certain benefits. If the other driver was uninsured, your own uninsured motorist coverage becomes critical.
We navigate no-fault coverage disputes with insurance companies who try to deny benefits to injured clients.
"Under personal protection insurance an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, subject to the provisions of this chapter."Read Full Statute
PIP coverage pays for all 'reasonable and necessary' medical expenses, lost wages up to the policy limit, and replacement services (like household chores you can no longer perform) arising from a motor vehicle accident.
Michigan's PIP coverage was once the most generous in the nation. After 2019 reforms, coverage levels vary by policy. Your medical bills and lost wages are paid regardless of fault.
We fight insurance companies who illegally deny or delay PIP benefits our clients are entitled to.
"Subject to the provisions of this chapter, for accidental bodily injury resulting from a motor vehicle accident and arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, personal protection insurance provides benefits for allowable expense, work loss, and replacement services as provided in this chapter."Read Full Statute
Michigan PIP is structured around three benefit categories: allowable expense (medical and related care), work loss (wage replacement subject to caps), and replacement services (help with household tasks you cannot perform because of the accident). What is covered, for how long, and in what amount depends on your policy tier and the chapter’s other sections.
When adjusters dispute whether a bill, wage claim, or attendant-care hour is 'reasonable and necessary' or within your elected PIP limit, this section is part of the framework for what PIP is supposed to pay.
We map your treatment, wage documentation, and replacement-service needs to the statutory categories and fight denials that ignore the full scope of benefits you purchased.
"Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), personal protection insurance benefits are payable in accordance with the following order of priority: (a) To the insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle with which the injury was causally related. (b) To the insurer of the operator of the motor vehicle with which the injury was causally related."Read Full Statute
When more than one auto policy could apply, Michigan law sets an order of priority for who must pay PIP benefits first — often based on whether you were in your own vehicle, a passenger, a pedestrian, or in an employer-owned or commercial vehicle. Subsections address special situations such as occupants of commercial vehicles and employer-owned fleet vehicles.
Wrong-priority disputes are common: two insurers each point at the other while your bills sit unpaid. Identifying the correct payor early avoids lost time and wrongful denials.
We analyze every applicable policy, registration, and employment relationship on intake so the correct insurer receives notice and pays under the statutory priority rules.
When an injured person is not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits from any other source under the no-fault chapter, the person may apply for assigned PIP benefits through the Michigan automobile insurance placement facility (MAIPF), subject to the section's caps, exclusions, and procedural rules. Always verify current statutory language at the official source.Read Full Statute
If you are hurt in a Michigan motor vehicle accident and you are not entitled to PIP from any source under the normal priority rules (for example, no applicable auto policy covers you), you may apply for benefits through Michigan's Assigned Claims Plan. The Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF) assigns a participating insurer to pay PIP. The statute sets application requirements, caps (including limits on medical benefits in many assigned-claims situations), and how assigned benefits coordinate with other parts of the no-fault act.
Uninsured claimants, excluded drivers, and gaps in household coverage often turn on whether an assigned claim is available — and how much coverage exists — while separate rules may still limit third-party noneconomic recovery if you were uninsured in certain situations.
We evaluate whether an Assigned Claims application is appropriate, meet MAIPF procedural requirements, and align assigned-PIP strategy with any third-party case under MCL 500.3135 and related sections.
"A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement. 'Serious impairment of body function' means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life."Read Full Statute
Michigan's no-fault system limits when you can sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering. To bring a tort claim, your injury must meet the 'serious impairment of a body function' threshold — meaning the impairment affects your ability to lead your normal life. The same section also sets rules for excess economic loss and, in subsection (2), limits who may recover noneconomic damages — including when the injured person was operating an uninsured vehicle.
Insurance companies routinely argue that injuries don't meet the serious impairment threshold to avoid paying pain and suffering. Uninsured-operation rules under subsection (2)(c) can bar noneconomic recovery even when the other driver was at fault — a separate trap from whether Assigned Claims PIP may be available under MCL 500.3172.
We document every impact the injury has had on our client's daily life — work, hobbies, relationships — to clearly establish serious impairment. We have successfully argued this threshold in cases involving soft tissue injuries that other firms refused to take.
"An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident causing the injury unless written notice of injury as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the claimant submits or has previously submitted written notice of injury to the insurer within 1 year after the accident."Read Full Statute
PIP benefit claims must be submitted to the insurer within 1 year of the date of the accident or the date the expense was incurred. Miss this deadline and the insurer can lawfully deny payment.
The one-year rule is strictly enforced. If you didn't submit medical bills to your no-fault insurer within one year of incurring them, you may not be able to recover those costs.
We immediately put no-fault insurers on notice and manage all PIP claim submissions on behalf of our clients to prevent deadline errors.
"A named insured who is covered under Medicare parts A and B, or Medicaid, may elect to exclude from his or her personal protection insurance coverage the benefits described in sections 3107 and 3107a. An election under this subsection shall be made on a form approved by the director."Read Full Statute
After Michigan's 2019 no-fault reform, drivers with Medicare or Medicaid can opt out of PIP medical coverage entirely. Others can choose reduced PIP limits. This dramatically affects how your medical bills are paid after an accident.
Many drivers now have reduced or no PIP coverage and don't realize it until after an accident. Your attorney must identify coverage levels early to develop the right strategy.
We obtain all relevant policy information within days of intake to map available coverage and prevent gaps in medical payment.
"A physician, hospital, clinic, or other person that lawfully renders treatment to an injured person for an accidental bodily injury covered by personal protection insurance shall not charge more for the treatment or training than the applicable fee schedule amount established under this chapter."Read Full Statute
After 2019, Michigan no-fault insurers pay medical providers according to capped fee schedules rather than full billed charges. Providers cannot bill patients for the difference.
Fee schedule limits affect which providers will treat no-fault patients and can create gaps in care. Understanding the rules helps you navigate the healthcare system after a crash.
We guide clients to providers who accept no-fault and help resolve billing disputes between insurers and medical facilities.
Motor Vehicle Code — Traffic & OWI
2 statutesMichigan restricts holding or using a mobile electronic device while operating a motor vehicle, with limited exceptions (e.g., hands-free modes that meet statutory criteria).Read Full Statute
Michigan law restricts holding or using a mobile electronic device while driving in most situations. Violations are a primary offense — police can stop a driver for phone use alone. Evidence of illegal device use (records, video, admissions) can support negligence and comparative-fault arguments in a crash case.
Distracted driving is a common cause of intersection and rear-end collisions. Proving the other driver was on a phone or device can shift fault and strengthen your liability case.
We subpoena phone records, seek dashcam and surveillance video, and depose drivers on device use when distraction is suspected.
"A person, whether operating a vehicle or a vehicle impelled or powered by the person, whether moving or stationary, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person is operating while intoxicated."Read Full Statute
Michigan prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs. OWI can be proven by blood alcohol level, drugs, or impaired ability to drive. A criminal OWI case is separate from your civil injury claim, but a conviction or police report can be powerful evidence of negligence.
If you were hit by a drunk or drug-impaired driver, the civil case often includes punitive damages arguments and may involve dram shop liability if a vendor over-served.
We coordinate with criminal discovery, obtain toxicology and body-cam materials, and pursue all liable parties including bars under the Dramshop Act when the facts support it.
Medical Malpractice
9 statutes"In an action for damages arising from medical malpractice, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed the following amounts... [adjusted annually for inflation; standard cap approximately $500,000; enhanced cap approximately $1,000,000 for specified severe permanent injuries or death]."Read Full Statute
Michigan law caps noneconomic damages (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life) in medical malpractice cases. As of 2024, the standard cap is approximately $500,000. An enhanced cap of roughly $1,000,000 applies to cases involving permanent impairment of a reproductive organ, permanent disability requiring lifetime care, or death. The caps adjust annually for inflation.
The cap directly limits what a jury can award you for pain and suffering, regardless of how severe your injuries are. Maximizing economic damages — lost wages, future medical care, disability — is critical to achieving full compensation.
We retain forensic economists and life-care planners to build comprehensive economic damage models that maximize recovery when the noneconomic cap applies.
"In an action alleging medical malpractice, a person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless the person is licensed as a health professional in this state or another state and, if the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist, specializes at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for the action in the same specialty as the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered."Read Full Statute
In Michigan medical malpractice cases, the expert witness who testifies about the standard of care must hold the same specialty as the defendant physician at the time of the alleged malpractice. A cardiologist must testify against a cardiologist — a general internist cannot substitute.
Getting the right expert is a threshold legal requirement in Michigan. If your attorney cannot produce a qualified matching-specialty expert, the court can dismiss your case before trial.
We maintain a national network of credentialed medical experts in every relevant specialty to ensure our clients' cases are never dismissed on expert qualification grounds alone.
"The plaintiff in an action alleging medical malpractice shall file with the complaint an affidavit of merit signed by a health professional who the plaintiff's attorney reasonably believes meets the requirements for an expert witness under section 2169. The affidavit of merit shall certify that the signing health professional has reviewed the notice and all medical records supplied to him or her by the plaintiff's attorney concerning the allegations contained in the notice."Read Full Statute
When filing a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff must attach an Affidavit of Merit — a sworn statement from a qualified expert witness confirming they reviewed the medical records and that the case has merit. Without this affidavit, the lawsuit will be dismissed.
This procedural requirement eliminates many malpractice cases before they start. An attorney who fails to properly obtain and file the Affidavit of Merit dooms the case at the outset.
We obtain Affidavits of Merit from matching-specialty experts during our intake process on every malpractice case, ensuring no case is filed before this threshold is met.
"The following actions shall be commenced within the applicable period of limitations: ... An action alleging medical malpractice shall not be commenced more than 2 years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim, except as otherwise provided by law."Read Full Statute
Medical malpractice claims in Michigan must be filed within 2 years from the date the negligent act occurred or was discovered — whichever is later, subject to the 6-year repose period. This is a shorter window than standard personal injury claims.
Two years moves quickly, especially when you're still treating and focused on recovery. Waiting too long — even a few months — can permanently bar your malpractice claim regardless of merit.
We calendar malpractice limitation deadlines the moment a case is first evaluated and begin expert consultation and Notice of Intent drafting immediately.
"An action alleging medical malpractice may be commenced at any time within the 2-year period immediately following the date of the act or omission which is the basis for the claim, or within the 2-year period immediately following the date the claimant discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. An action may not be brought more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission which is the basis for the claim."Read Full Statute
The malpractice statute of limitations begins on the date the last negligent act occurred, or the date the patient knew or should have known of the injury and its connection to medical treatment — whichever is later. The absolute maximum is 6 years from the negligent act.
In delayed-discovery situations — such as a surgical sponge left inside the body or a misread lab result — the discovery rule can extend the filing window significantly beyond the date of treatment.
We apply discovery rule arguments to preserve malpractice claims when clients come to us after a delayed diagnosis of a treatment error.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an action alleging medical malpractice may not be brought more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim, regardless of when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the existence of the claim."Read Full Statute
Even with the discovery rule, Michigan imposes an absolute 6-year period of repose for malpractice claims running from the date of the negligent act. After 6 years, the claim is extinguished even if the victim could not have discovered the injury earlier.
If a medical error occurred more than 6 years ago, your claim may be permanently barred — even if you only recently discovered what happened. Time is critical.
We evaluate every malpractice case immediately for repose issues and advise clients honestly about whether their claim is still viable before investing in costly expert review.
"If the person first entitled to bring an action for medical malpractice is under 18 years of age at the time the claim accrues, the person shall have 1 year after reaching the age of 18 to bring the action, subject to the applicable period of repose under section 5838a."Read Full Statute
Special tolling rules apply to malpractice claims involving minors. A child injured by malpractice may have a tolled limitations period until they reach adulthood, but the 6-year repose period still applies regardless. Birth injury cases have particularly complex timing that requires immediate attorney review.
Birth injury and pediatric malpractice cases involve competing deadlines — the minor's tolling provision versus the repose period. Missing these deadlines is catastrophic for families.
We handle birth injury and pediatric malpractice cases and are intimately familiar with the specific rules that apply to minor clients, including when the repose period can override tolling.
"The statute of limitations is tolled when... (c) In medical malpractice actions, the applicable notice period under section 2912b begins. The period of limitations is tolled from the date of written notice under section 2912b until the date the action may be commenced under section 2912b."Read Full Statute
The 182-day Notice of Intent waiting period before a malpractice lawsuit can be filed does not count against the statute of limitations. The limitations clock is suspended while the NOI period runs.
This tolling provision prevents the unfair result of a malpractice plaintiff losing their case while they're legally required to wait before filing suit.
We manage the NOI tolling calendar precisely to ensure no deadline is missed between service of the notice and filing of the complaint.
"In a medical malpractice action, the liability of each defendant for damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for that portion of the total damages that is equal to that defendant's percentage of the total fault, except that defendants who conspire together or act in concert are jointly and severally liable."Read Full Statute
In medical malpractice cases, defendants are generally only severally (not jointly) liable — each defendant pays only their own percentage of fault assigned by the jury. Defendants who conspired or colluded are an exception and face joint and several liability.
In multi-defendant malpractice cases involving a hospital, surgeon, anesthesiologist, and nurses, each party pays only their proportionate share. Identifying and naming all liable parties is critical so no share goes uncollected.
We name every potentially liable party in malpractice lawsuits — from the treating physician to the hospital system — and pursue each to ensure our clients collect the maximum available recovery.
Governmental Immunity
11 statutes"No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within 1 year after the claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against the state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies, stating the time when and the place where the claim arose."Read Full Statute
To sue the State of Michigan, you must file a verified claim in the Court of Claims within 6 months of the injury or within 1 year for certain wrongful death claims. This notice requirement is a threshold condition for bringing any lawsuit against the state government.
Missing this notice deadline permanently bars your claim against the State of Michigan — even if the regular 3-year statute of limitations has not expired. This procedural trap catches many unrepresented claimants.
We identify state government defendants immediately upon intake and file Court of Claims notices as a first priority action before addressing any other aspect of the claim.
"Each governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. A person who sustains bodily injury or damage to his or her property by reason of failure of a governmental agency to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover the damages suffered from the governmental agency."Read Full Statute
While government agencies are generally immune from negligence lawsuits, the highway exception requires government agencies to maintain roadways in 'reasonable repair.' If they fail to do so and you are injured as a result, their immunity is waived for that claim.
If you were injured due to a pothole, failed traffic signal, missing guardrail, or defective road design on a public road, you may have a claim against the county, city, or state — but specific procedural requirements must be followed precisely.
We have defeated immunity arguments in highway defect cases by proving government agencies had actual or constructive notice of dangerous conditions and failed to act.
"Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from a dangerous or defective condition of a public building if the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and, for a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge, failed to remedy the condition."Read Full Statute
Government agencies can be sued for injuries caused by a dangerous or defective condition in a public building when the agency knew about the defect and had a reasonable opportunity to correct it.
Slip and falls, structural failures, and other injuries occurring in schools, courthouses, government offices, and other public buildings may qualify for this exception to governmental immunity.
We document defective conditions in public buildings and gather evidence of prior complaints or inspection reports to establish the government's notice of the hazard.
"Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by any officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is owner."Read Full Statute
Government agencies waive immunity when their employees negligently operate government-owned vehicles and cause injury. This exception applies to police cars, school buses, city trucks, snowplows, and all other government vehicles.
If you were hit by a government vehicle — from a city bus to a county patrol car — you may be able to sue the employing agency and its driver despite the general rule of governmental immunity.
We pursue motor vehicle exception claims against municipalities whose employees cause accidents, obtaining incident reports, dashcam footage, and agency maintenance records to prove negligence.
"Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the maintenance and operation of a proprietary function. A governmental agency that owns or operates a public utility, including water, sewer, or gas utility, shall be liable for damages caused by negligent maintenance or operation of that utility."Read Full Statute
Governmental immunity is waived when a government agency owns or operates a public utility — such as a water system, sewer line, or gas distribution system — and negligently manages it, causing personal injury or property damage.
Sewage backups, water main failures, and other public utility failures that cause injury or property damage may give rise to claims against the government agency operating the utility, despite the general immunity rule.
We investigate public utility failure cases to determine whether a governmental agency's negligence was the underlying cause, enabling claims that bypass immunity.
"A governmental agency may be liable for bodily injury or property damage when the governmental agency is engaged in a proprietary function. A proprietary function is an activity normally conducted for profit, or a commercial enterprise undertaken by a governmental agency."Read Full Statute
When a government agency operates in a commercial or business capacity — a 'proprietary function' — it loses immunity protection. Running a stadium, parking facility, golf course, or similar revenue-generating operation can qualify.
Determining whether a government activity is 'governmental' (immune) or 'proprietary' (not immune) is heavily contested. Some quasi-governmental facilities that look like public services are actually operating as businesses subject to full liability.
We analyze the nature and revenue structure of every government-operated facility to determine whether the proprietary function exception applies and unlocks otherwise-immune defendants.
"Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function."Read Full Statute
Michigan's primary governmental immunity statute grants complete immunity to governmental agencies for tort claims arising from the exercise of governmental functions. This broad protection covers virtually all government conduct unless a specific statutory exception applies.
Governmental immunity is a powerful defense that can completely bar a lawsuit against a government entity. Identifying and properly pleading a recognized exception is essential from the very beginning of your case.
We are experienced in navigating all recognized exceptions to governmental immunity and identify the strongest applicable legal theory for each client's specific circumstances.
"A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property whenever they are acting within the scope of their judicial, legislative, or executive authority."Read Full Statute
Judges acting within their judicial capacity have broad immunity from civil tort claims for acts taken within their jurisdiction, even if those acts were mistaken or improper.
Claims against judges for rulings made during court proceedings are almost always barred under this immunity. However, acts outside a judge's judicial function or outside their jurisdiction may not be immune.
In cases involving judicial conduct, we focus on federal civil rights claims and administrative remedies rather than state tort claims against the individual judge.
"When the state or a governmental agency is not immune from liability as provided in this act, the governmental agency is subject to the same rules of liability as are applicable to a private person or corporation in similar circumstances."Read Full Statute
When a governmental agency is not protected by immunity — because a specific statutory exception applies — it faces the same negligence liability as any private person or entity.
Once immunity is overcome, government agencies face full liability for the damages they caused. The same negligence standards that apply to private defendants govern the government's conduct.
Once we clear the immunity hurdle, we apply standard negligence principles and pursue the same damages we would seek against any other defendant responsible for our client's injuries.
"As used in this chapter: 'Governmental agency' means the state or a political subdivision. 'Governmental function' means an activity that is expressly or impliedly mandated or authorized by constitution, statute, local charter or ordinance, or other law."Read Full Statute
This section defines which governmental entities the Governmental Immunity Act covers, including the state, counties, cities, townships, school districts, and other governmental agencies. It also defines what qualifies as a 'governmental function.'
Whether a defendant qualifies as a 'governmental agency' is the threshold question in every immunity case. Some quasi-governmental or privatized entities are not actually immune under this statute.
We research the legal structure and authority of every defendant before making immunity concessions — some entities that look governmental are not immune.
"A governmental agency that has jurisdiction over a highway shall not be liable for damages in an action based on a theory of negligent design of the highway unless the highway was designed in violation of a standard in effect at the time the highway was designed and the governmental agency had actual notice of the defect."Read Full Statute
These sections establish baseline design and maintenance standards for government roads and highways, defining when government compliance with those standards provides a defense to highway defect claims and when departures from standards support liability.
Government agencies cite design standards compliance as a defense. Proving a road was defective despite technical compliance with minimum standards — or proving non-compliance — requires expert civil engineering testimony.
We retain civil engineering experts to evaluate road design and prove that a highway defect caused our client's crash, whether or not the government claims compliance with applicable standards.
Joint & Several Liability
4 statutes"Where 2 or more persons are jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, or the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them."Read Full Statute
These sections governed joint and several liability before Michigan's 1995 tort reform. Under pre-reform law, each defendant could be held liable for the full judgment regardless of their share of fault. These provisions now have limited application to pre-1996 conduct.
Primarily relevant for cases involving conduct occurring before 1996. In current practice, these sections are largely superseded by the several liability rules enacted under tort reform.
We apply the appropriate liability scheme based on when the injurious conduct occurred — which can significantly affect the collectability of a verdict in older or multi-defendant cases.
"Except as provided in section 6304, in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each person shall be allocated to each person in direct proportion to the person's percentage of fault. Liability shall be several only and shall not be joint."Read Full Statute
Michigan's 1995 tort reform eliminated joint and several liability in most cases. Each defendant is now only responsible for their own proportionate share of fault as determined by the jury — not the full judgment.
If a defendant is uninsured or insolvent, the plaintiff cannot force other defendants to cover that share. Identifying all insured, solvent defendants before filing is critical to ensuring collectability.
We investigate every possible defendant and their insurance coverage before filing to ensure we can actually collect on any verdict we win.
"Each defendant is liable only for the portion of the total damages equal to that defendant's percentage of fault. If a defendant is unable to satisfy a judgment, the court shall reallocate that defendant's share of the judgment among the remaining parties, including the plaintiff, in proportion to their respective percentages of fault."Read Full Statute
Each defendant is only liable for their proportionate share of fault. If a defendant cannot pay their share, their uncollectable portion is reallocated proportionately between the plaintiff and the remaining solvent defendants.
Reallocation offers some protection when a defendant is insolvent, but the plaintiff ultimately bears part of the uncollectable share. Understanding this going in shapes settlement strategy.
We pre-screen all defendants for solvency and insurance coverage before trial and structure cases to maximize the collectable portion of any verdict we win.
"A right of contribution exists between or among two or more persons who are jointly and severally liable upon the same indivisible claim for the same harm, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or any of them. It may be enforced either in the original action or by a separate action."Read Full Statute
A defendant who pays more than their proportionate share of a judgment can seek contribution from co-defendants to recover the overpayment. Contribution actions between defendants do not affect the plaintiff's recovery.
As a plaintiff, contribution claims between defendants don't directly affect you — but understanding this dynamic explains why defendants may cooperate (or refuse to cooperate) during settlement negotiations.
We understand contribution dynamics and use them strategically when structuring multi-defendant settlements to maximize our clients' net recovery without triggering post-judgment contribution litigation.
Emotional Distress
5 statutes"A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section. For claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the 3-year period of limitations applies."Read Full Statute
Civil claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress — arising from extreme and outrageous conduct — must be filed within 3 years of the act that caused the emotional harm. The clock starts when the outrageous conduct occurred or when the victim became aware of the harm.
If a police officer, employer, or other party subjected you to deliberate and extreme conduct causing serious emotional injury, you have 3 years to file a civil claim for that harm.
We identify all applicable emotional distress theories and ensure they are properly pleaded within the limitations period to capture every available avenue of recovery.
"The claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results."Read Full Statute
An emotional distress claim accrues when the wrongful conduct causing the harm occurs. In cases where emotional injuries develop gradually — such as post-traumatic stress disorder following repeated harassment — determining the accrual date requires careful legal and medical analysis.
In trauma cases where symptoms emerge over time, the accrual date may be disputed. Getting this date right determines whether your claim is timely — and therefore viable.
We work with mental health professionals and medical providers to establish accrual dates that preserve the longest possible filing window for clients whose emotional injuries developed over time.
"Damages recoverable in a wrongful death action shall include reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses for which the estate is liable; loss of financial support and other contributions of the deceased person to survivors; and damages for the loss of the society and companionship of the deceased."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Wrongful Death Act allows surviving family members to recover damages for loss of society and companionship — the emotional devastation of losing a loved one — as part of a wrongful death claim.
Grief, emotional devastation, and the permanent loss of a family relationship are legally compensable in wrongful death cases, though these noneconomic damages are subject to statutory caps in medical malpractice wrongful death cases.
We document the profound impact of a loved one's death on every surviving family member — spouse, children, parents — to build the strongest possible emotional damages case.
"In an action based on tort, the liability of each defendant shall be allocated in direct proportion to the party's percentage of fault. In determining percentages of fault, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of each person that contributed to the injury, regardless of whether the person is named as a party."Read Full Statute
In emotional distress cases involving multiple defendants, the jury allocates fault percentages to each party. Each defendant is responsible only for their proportionate share of the plaintiff's emotional damages.
Defendants in emotional distress cases will attempt to shift fault to other parties or to the plaintiff. A clear factual record of each defendant's specific conduct minimizes these deflection arguments.
We build detailed timelines and present clear evidence of each defendant's conduct so the jury can accurately attribute emotional harm to the parties who caused it.
"A person shall not commit torture. As used in this section, 'torture' means the intentional infliction of extreme physical or mental suffering upon another person within the jurisdiction of this state, if the person committing the act knew that the act would inflict severe or extreme physical or mental suffering upon the person."Read Full Statute
Michigan's criminal torture statute prohibits intentionally causing severe mental suffering or extreme physical pain to a person in custody. While primarily criminal, an officer's criminal conduct under this statute can support a civil claim for emotional and physical damages.
If you or a family member was subjected to deliberate torture or severe abuse while in police or government custody, both criminal prosecution of the officer and a civil damages claim may proceed simultaneously.
We coordinate civil claims with criminal proceedings in custody abuse cases, using criminal convictions or findings to establish civil liability for extreme emotional and physical harm.
Damage Caps & Recovery Limits
7 statutes"The right to the recovery of benefits as provided in this act shall be the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease. The only exception to this exclusive remedy is an intentional tort."Read Full Statute
If you are injured on the job, workers' compensation is generally your exclusive remedy against your employer — you cannot also sue them in tort. However, the exclusive remedy does NOT protect third parties (equipment manufacturers, property owners, other contractors) whose negligence contributed to your injury.
The exclusive remedy bar limits what you can collect from your employer, but it does not prevent a separate, potentially much larger tort claim against third parties who were also responsible for your injury.
We routinely identify third-party tort claims running parallel to workers' compensation benefits, giving our clients the opportunity to recover far more than comp alone would provide.
"In an action for damages arising from medical malpractice, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed the maximum amounts set forth in this section, which are adjusted annually for inflation by the state court administrator."Read Full Statute
Michigan caps noneconomic damages (pain, suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life) in medical malpractice cases. The standard cap adjusts annually; an enhanced cap applies in the most severe cases. Economic damages — actual financial losses — are not capped.
The cap limits pain and suffering damages regardless of injury severity, making economic damages documentation critical. Without a thorough economic analysis, clients may leave substantial recoverable compensation unclaimed.
We build detailed economic damage cases using forensic economists, life-care planners, and vocational experts to maximize recovery when noneconomic caps limit pain and suffering awards.
"In an action for a product liability claim, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed the amount calculated under this section, as adjusted annually for inflation."Read Full Statute
Michigan caps noneconomic damages in product liability cases as well. The cap adjusts annually for inflation. Economic damages — medical bills, lost wages, future expenses — remain fully recoverable.
When a defective product causes severe injury, the noneconomic cap can significantly limit pain and suffering recovery. Thoroughly documenting economic damages becomes essential to full compensation.
We build strong economic damage cases in product liability matters, including future care costs, lost earning capacity, and all other economic losses, to maximize total recovery.
"In an action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, if the total award for future damages exceeds $100,000.00, the court may order that the future damages be paid as a series of periodic payments rather than a lump sum if the court finds that such payment is in the best interest of the plaintiff."Read Full Statute
In cases with large future damage awards, Michigan courts may allow defendants to pay future damages in periodic installments rather than a lump sum. The court has discretion to order periodic payment in appropriate circumstances.
A periodic payment order changes how and when you receive your compensation. Lump-sum recovery gives you immediate certainty; periodic payments expose you to the risk of a defendant's future insolvency.
We advocate for lump-sum recovery in most cases to give our clients immediate, certain access to their compensation, and oppose periodic payment orders that create future collection risk.
"Interest shall be allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at a rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1."Read Full Statute
Michigan law entitles a judgment winner to collect interest on the verdict amount from the date the complaint was filed until the judgment is paid in full. The interest rate is set by statute, tied to the prime rate.
In cases that take several years to litigate, judgment interest can add tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to the amount the defendant must ultimately pay. It incentivizes prompt payment and compensates plaintiffs for the time value of delayed recovery.
We calculate and demand prejudgment and post-judgment interest on every case, ensuring our clients receive maximum compensation for the full period their money was withheld.
"In a personal injury or wrongful death action, if a plaintiff has received or will receive benefits from a collateral source for the same injury or death, the total amount of damages otherwise payable shall be reduced by the amount of those collateral benefits, except to the extent that the plaintiff has paid premiums for those benefits."Read Full Statute
Michigan law requires courts to reduce personal injury damage awards by amounts the plaintiff has already received from collateral sources — such as health insurance, disability insurance, or no-fault PIP benefits — unless the plaintiff paid premiums for those benefits.
Insurance companies use the collateral source rule as a tool to reduce your damages award. However, any benefit you personally paid premiums for is specifically protected and cannot be used to reduce your recovery.
We carefully document every benefit source and every premium payment our clients made to ensure the collateral source reduction is applied only as narrowly as the law permits.
"A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement."Read Full Statute
Michigan's no-fault system limits access to pain and suffering compensation to cases where the injury causes a 'serious impairment of a body function' — one that affects the victim's ability to lead their normal life. Minor injuries that do not meet this threshold cannot form the basis of a tort claim for noneconomic damages.
This threshold is the most frequently litigated issue in Michigan car accident cases. Insurance companies routinely deny that injuries meet the threshold. Documenting how your injuries affect your daily life is essential.
We build detailed impairment records for every car accident client, working with treating physicians and life-function experts to establish serious impairment in even difficult cases.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety (FMCSA & 49 CFR)
6 statutesThe Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) develops and enforces safety regulations for commercial motor vehicles and carriers operating in interstate commerce, including driver qualifications, hours of service, and vehicle maintenance.Read Full Statute
The FMCSA regulates interstate commercial motor carriers, drivers, and vehicles. Its rules cover qualifications, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, drug and alcohol testing, and safety management. Michigan truck crash cases often turn on whether the carrier and driver complied with these federal standards.
Violations of FMCSA regulations can support negligence claims against carriers and drivers and help explain why a crash was preventable.
We pull safety measurement system data, prior violations, ELD records, and maintenance files and map them to the federal rules that apply to your crash.
Part 390 contains definitions, applicability, and general requirements for entities subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).Read Full Statute
Part 390 sets the scope of federal motor carrier safety rules and defines key terms like commercial motor vehicle and motor carrier. It is the entry point for the regulatory framework that applies to most interstate trucking operations.
Carriers cannot avoid federal safety duties by claiming they did not know which rules applied. Part 390 frames which vehicles and operations must comply.
We use Part 390 to establish that the defendant motor carrier was subject to the full set of FMCSR duties in your case.
Part 391 sets minimum qualifications for commercial drivers, including application, licensing, medical certification, and prohibitions on driving when disqualified.Read Full Statute
Part 391 requires carriers to verify that drivers are qualified — valid CDL, medical certification, driving record review, and compliance with prohibitions on disqualified drivers. Putting an unqualified driver on the road is a systemic carrier failure.
If a driver should not have been behind the wheel, Part 391 violations can expose the motor carrier to direct liability for negligent hiring and entrustment.
We obtain driver qualification files, hiring records, and MVR history to test whether the carrier met Part 391 before dispatch.
Part 395 limits driving and on-duty time and requires hours-of-service documentation, including through electronic logging devices (ELDs) where applicable.Read Full Statute
Part 395 limits driving time, on-duty time, and mandates rest breaks for most commercial drivers. Electronic logging devices (ELDs) are intended to record compliance. Fatigue-related crashes often involve hours-of-service violations or falsified logs.
When a driver was over hours or logs do not match GPS or toll data, that evidence can rebut the carrier's defense and show preventable risk.
We preserve ELD and ECM data immediately and compare it to Part 395 limits and dispatch records.
Part 396 requires systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles and retention of related records.Read Full Statute
Part 396 requires systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial vehicles. Drivers must complete pre-trip inspections; carriers must keep maintenance records. Brake, tire, and lighting failures tied to skipped maintenance are common in serious truck crashes.
Deferred maintenance is not an accident — it is a choice. Part 396 violations help prove the carrier knew or should have known the vehicle was unsafe.
We subpoena maintenance invoices, inspection reports, and vendor records as soon as we are retained.
Section 392.82 restricts use of mobile telephones and electronic devices by drivers of commercial motor vehicles, including bans on texting and holding phones while driving.Read Full Statute
Federal rules restrict commercial motor vehicle drivers from holding or reaching for mobile phones and from texting while driving, with limited exceptions. Violations are safety infractions that can support negligence claims when distraction causes a crash.
Distracted commercial driving at highway speeds is catastrophic. This rule gives a clear federal standard beyond state traffic law.
We seek phone records, cab video, and dispatch communications to prove distraction when the facts support it.
No statutes match your search. Try a different keyword or MCL number.
These statutes govern police misconduct, excessive force, and civil rights litigation in Michigan — including both Michigan Compiled Laws and the key federal statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1983) that form the backbone of every police brutality case. Click any statute to see a plain-language explanation.
Federal Civil Rights Laws
4 statutes"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."Read Full Statute
Section 1983 is the primary federal law used to sue police officers and government officials who violate your constitutional rights. It allows you to bring your case in federal court and recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees.
Every police misconduct lawsuit Christopher Trainor & Associates files is brought under § 1983. It bypasses Michigan governmental immunity entirely and holds officers accountable under federal constitutional standards.
We have obtained some of Michigan's largest § 1983 verdicts, including $6.2M, $5.8M, and $5.5M. Our attorneys know this statute better than almost any firm in the state.
"In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title... the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity..."Read Full Statute
If you win a civil rights lawsuit under § 1983, the government must pay your attorney fees. This makes it financially possible for victims to pursue civil rights cases even without money upfront.
This fee-shifting provision is why civil rights firms can take police misconduct cases on contingency. It levels the playing field against well-funded government defendants.
We recover full attorney fees from municipalities after successful civil rights verdicts, ensuring justice doesn't depend on a client's financial resources.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."Read Full Statute
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures of persons, including the use of excessive force by police. Under Graham v. Connor, force must be objectively reasonable based on the facts known to the officer at the moment — not in hindsight.
Most police brutality cases are Fourth Amendment claims. The question is whether a reasonable officer would have used the same level of force under the same circumstances.
We use use-of-force experts, police policies, and the defendant officers' own training records to demonstrate Fourth Amendment violations in every excessive force case.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." — U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.Read Full Statute
The Fourteenth Amendment protects against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and guarantees equal protection under the law. It applies civil rights protections to state actors — police officers and government officials.
Used in cases involving wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, race-based discrimination by police, and denial of medical care in custody.
We combine Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in complex civil rights cases to maximize the legal theories available and increase the pressure on government defendants to settle or face trial.
Statutes of Limitations
4 statutes"A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for assault and battery... unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within 3 years."Read Full Statute
Civil claims for assault and battery in Michigan must be filed within 3 years of the incident. This is the primary limitations period for lawsuits against police officers who use excessive force against civilians.
Three years sounds like significant time, but evidence disappears, witnesses forget, and body camera footage gets deleted. The sooner you contact a civil rights attorney after a use-of-force incident, the stronger your case will be.
We open files on police misconduct cases immediately and issue evidence preservation letters to departments within days of intake to capture footage and records before they are overwritten.
"A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for deprivation of civil rights under Michigan law unless the action is commenced within 3 years after the claim first accrued."Read Full Statute
State civil rights tort claims carry a 3-year statute of limitations. Federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 also borrow Michigan's 3-year personal injury period, making both state and federal civil rights claims subject to the same 3-year window.
The 3-year limitations period for civil rights cases runs from the date of the constitutional violation — typically the date of the arrest, use of force, or wrongful detention.
We file both federal (§ 1983) and state civil rights claims simultaneously to preserve every available theory of recovery and maximize pressure on government defendants.
"The period of limitations runs from the time the claim accrues. The claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results."Read Full Statute
A civil rights claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and its cause. For excessive force claims, accrual is typically the date of the incident. For wrongful conviction or malicious prosecution claims, accrual may be delayed until the conviction is vacated or charges are dismissed.
In wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution cases, the limitations period may not begin until after criminal proceedings conclude, protecting clients who don't realize they have a civil claim until charges against them are resolved.
We carefully analyze the accrual date in every civil rights case — particularly in wrongful prosecution matters — to ensure claims are timely and preserved even when the constitutional violation occurred years ago.
"All other personal actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the claim first accrued or within such shorter period as the statute of limitations may provide."Read Full Statute
For civil rights or unusual tort claims not covered by a specific limitation period, Michigan provides a 6-year catch-all window. This provision can apply to novel or mixed-theory civil rights cases where the specific limitation period is disputed.
Rarely the primary limitation period in straightforward police misconduct cases, but valuable as a fallback argument in complex matters involving multiple theories of liability with different accrual dates.
We use the catch-all provision strategically when the government challenges the timeliness of claims arising from long-running patterns of police misconduct or cases with disputed accrual dates.
Governmental Immunity
6 statutes"Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Governmental Immunity Act grants government agencies — including police departments and municipalities — broad immunity from negligence claims arising from governmental functions. A specific statutory exception must apply to overcome this immunity.
Governmental immunity is the primary defense Michigan municipalities raise in civil rights cases brought under state law. Federal § 1983 claims bypass this immunity entirely — which is why civil rights attorneys rely primarily on federal claims.
We rely primarily on federal § 1983 claims to avoid Michigan's broad governmental immunity, while simultaneously identifying any applicable state-law exceptions that allow parallel state claims.
"Each officer and employee of a governmental agency... is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer, employee, or member while in the course of employment or service... if... (c) The officer's, employee's, member's, or volunteer's conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage."Read Full Statute
Individual government employees, including police officers, are personally immune from state-law negligence claims unless their conduct was grossly negligent — substantially more than ordinary negligence — and was the proximate cause of the harm.
This high gross negligence standard makes state-law claims against individual officers extremely difficult to pursue. It is one of the primary reasons civil rights attorneys rely on federal § 1983, which has no such immunity requirement.
We pursue federal § 1983 claims that bypass state immunity protections, while building the factual record to satisfy gross negligence for state-law claims in the strongest cases.
"A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property whenever they are acting within the scope of their judicial, legislative, or executive authority."Read Full Statute
Judges acting within their judicial capacity are broadly immune from state tort liability for acts taken within their jurisdiction.
Claims against judges for conduct during court proceedings are generally barred. In civil rights cases, federal remedies (§ 1983) and administrative complaints provide the primary avenues for challenging judicial misconduct.
In cases involving judicial conduct, we focus on federal constitutional claims and bar association complaints rather than state tort claims against the individual judge.
"A volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the volunteer while acting on behalf of the governmental agency if the volunteer is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority."Read Full Statute
Volunteers acting on behalf of a governmental agency have limited immunity from personal tort liability when acting reasonably within the scope of their volunteer duties.
Volunteer auxiliary police officers, civilian ride-alongs, and community policing volunteers may have limited immunity protection depending on the nature of their role at the time of the incident.
We analyze the employment and volunteer status of every participant in a civil rights incident to identify which individuals retain immunity and which do not, ensuring we target the right defendants.
"The exceptions to governmental immunity include: failure to maintain highways in reasonable repair (§ 691.1402); negligent operation of government motor vehicles (§ 691.1404); dangerous or defective conditions in public buildings (§ 691.1403); negligent maintenance of public utilities (§ 691.1405); and proprietary functions (§ 691.1406)."Read Full Statute
The Governmental Immunity Act carves out five exceptions that allow lawsuits against government agencies: highway defects, negligent motor vehicle operation, public building defects, public utility failures, and proprietary (commercial) functions.
When a civil rights incident involves a government vehicle, a public building, or another listed exception, a state tort claim against the government agency may proceed alongside the federal § 1983 claim.
We assess all applicable immunity exceptions in every civil rights case to build the widest possible net of legal theories and defendants.
"When the state or a governmental agency is not immune from liability as provided in this act, the governmental agency is subject to the same rules of liability as are applicable to a private person or corporation in similar circumstances."Read Full Statute
When a governmental agency's immunity is waived because an exception applies, it faces the same liability standards as any private defendant. Full compensatory and — where available — punitive damages may be pursued.
Once immunity is cleared, the government is exposed to the full range of civil damages. Combined with a § 1983 claim, this can significantly increase total recovery in civil rights cases.
We pair federal § 1983 claims with state negligence claims whenever immunity is overcome, creating multiple paths to maximum recovery for our clients.
State Tort Claims — Assault & Battery
3 statutes"Any person who commits an assault or a battery upon another person is liable in a civil action for the damages caused by the assault or battery. This section applies regardless of whether the person was acting under color of law at the time of the assault or battery."Read Full Statute
Michigan common law and statute allow a civil lawsuit for assault — placing someone in reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact — separate from the actual physical battery. In police misconduct cases, the threat of unlawful force can independently create civil liability.
Even if an officer never physically touched you, deliberately placing you in genuine fear of imminent harm through drawn weapons, aggressive confrontations, or threatening conduct may give rise to a civil assault claim.
We plead civil assault claims alongside battery and § 1983 claims in all applicable police misconduct cases, ensuring every instance of unlawful threatening conduct is captured in the complaint.
"In an action arising out of an intentional tort, a person who sustains loss of consortium as a result of a personal injury to his or her spouse, parent, or child may recover damages for loss of society and companionship."Read Full Statute
When a victim is seriously injured by an intentional tort, their immediate family members (spouse, parent, child) may bring separate claims for loss of companionship, society, and services — similar to wrongful death damages, but available while the victim is still alive.
In severe police brutality cases resulting in permanent disability, family members who depended on the victim can recover for the devastating disruption to their family relationships and daily lives.
We evaluate loss of consortium claims for family members in every serious police misconduct case involving permanent impairment, adding these damages to maximize total recovery for the affected family.
"In an action based on an intentional tort, the trier of fact may award exemplary damages to a plaintiff in addition to any compensatory damages awarded, if the trier of fact finds that the defendant's conduct was so egregious that it warrants punishment and deterrence beyond compensatory damages."Read Full Statute
Michigan allows exemplary damages in intentional tort cases as a form of punishment and deterrence for particularly egregious misconduct. In police brutality matters, exemplary damages can substantially increase total recovery when officer conduct was especially malicious.
Exemplary damages can significantly increase the total award in cases involving deliberate cruelty, sadistic conduct, or clear abuse of police authority.
We specifically request exemplary damages in police brutality cases involving extreme or malicious officer conduct, using the enhanced damages as both a deterrent and a compensatory tool.
Wrongful Death & Survival
3 statutes"If a person dies as a result of a wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, the personal representative of the estate of the deceased person may maintain an action for damages against the person who is liable for the wrongful act, neglect, or fault. This right of action survives and may be prosecuted regardless of the identity or status of the defendant."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Wrongful Death Act allows the estate of a person killed by police violence or civil rights violations to sue for economic losses, loss of companionship for surviving family members, and funeral expenses. A death at the hands of government actors does not eliminate or reduce these rights.
If your family member was killed by police — in a shooting, an in-custody death, or another use of force — the Wrongful Death Act is the foundation of your state-law claim alongside the federal § 1983 civil rights action.
We have obtained multi-million dollar verdicts for families of police violence victims in Michigan, pursuing both state wrongful death claims and federal § 1983 claims simultaneously to maximize recovery.
"Except as otherwise provided, all claims and demands whatsoever, and all rights and causes of actions, whether arising on contract or otherwise, shall survive and may be prosecuted or defended by or against the personal representative of a deceased person in the same manner as if that person had not died."Read Full Statute
When a police brutality victim dies — immediately from use of force or later from related injuries — their existing civil rights and personal injury claims survive and transfer to their estate. The estate can recover for the decedent's pre-death pain, suffering, and conscious anguish.
The moments of terror, pain, and awareness before death are legally compensable under the survival statute. This is separate from the wrongful death damages available to the family.
We always assert both survival and wrongful death claims in police-caused death cases to capture every category of recoverable damages for both the victim's estate and surviving family members.
"In an action for the wrongful death of a person, the estate of the deceased may recover for the conscious pain and suffering and mental anguish experienced by the deceased person from the time of injury to the time of death, in addition to all other damages provided by law."Read Full Statute
Michigan law allows recovery for conscious pre-death pain and suffering when a victim was aware of their injury between the time force was applied and their death. The duration of consciousness and level of suffering are key factors in calculating these damages.
In police shooting and in-custody death cases, documenting the period of consciousness after the use of force can significantly increase the survival damages available to the estate.
We work with medical experts and first responders to establish the duration of consciousness and degree of suffering between the use of force and death, maximizing survival damages for the victim's estate.
Court of Claims
3 statutes"No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within 6 months after the claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against the state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies."Read Full Statute
To sue the State of Michigan — including the Michigan State Police — you must file a verified claim in the Court of Claims within 6 months of the incident (or within 1 year for some wrongful death claims). This requirement is separate from and in addition to the regular 3-year statute of limitations.
Missing the 6-month Court of Claims notice deadline permanently bars your claim against the State of Michigan — even if the regular limitations period has not expired. This is a trap that catches many unrepresented plaintiffs.
We identify state government defendants immediately on intake and file Court of Claims notices as a first-priority action, before addressing any other aspect of the civil rights claim.
"The court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction of all claims and demands, liquidated and unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, against the state and any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies."Read Full Statute
The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over all lawsuits for money damages against the State of Michigan. Claims against Michigan State Police troopers acting in their official capacity must be filed in the Court of Claims, not in the circuit court.
State Police misconduct cases follow different procedural rules than local police cases. Filing in the wrong court — or failing to understand jurisdiction — can result in dismissal.
We are experienced Court of Claims practitioners and understand the specific procedures, filing requirements, and timelines that govern suits against the State of Michigan.
"A claim against the state shall be barred unless the action is commenced within 3 years after the claim first accrues, subject to the notice requirement of section 6431. Both deadlines must be satisfied independently."Read Full Statute
Claims against the state must generally be filed in the Court of Claims within 3 years of the claim accruing, subject to the earlier 6-month notice requirement. Both deadlines must be satisfied independently — meeting one does not satisfy the other.
You can have a timely regular claim and still be permanently barred in the Court of Claims if you missed the 6-month notice window. Both timelines must be tracked simultaneously from day one.
We calendar both the 6-month notice deadline and the 3-year limitations deadline at intake for every civil rights case involving state government defendants.
Criminal Statutes — Officer Conduct
6 statutes"A person who assaults or assaults and batters an individual is guilty of a misdemeanor. As used in this section, 'assault' means an attempt to commit a battery, or an unlawful act that places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery."Read Full Statute
Michigan's criminal assault and battery statute makes it a misdemeanor to assault or physically batter another person. When police officers are criminally charged under this statute for conduct against civilians, those criminal proceedings create a contemporaneous official record of the misconduct.
If an officer is criminally charged for conduct against you, the criminal charge — and especially a conviction — can be powerful evidence in your parallel civil rights lawsuit.
We monitor criminal proceedings against officers involved in our civil cases and coordinate timing to benefit from criminal findings, convictions, and adverse admissions.
"A person who assaults an individual without a weapon and inflicts serious or aggravated injury upon that individual without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine... [Aggravated assault]."Read Full Statute
Aggravated assault — causing serious or aggravated bodily injury — is a felony-level criminal offense in Michigan. When an officer faces criminal aggravated assault charges, the more serious criminal standard reflects a higher level of unlawful conduct directly relevant to civil liability.
An officer charged with aggravated assault has crossed a criminal line that simultaneously establishes the extreme nature of the force used in your civil rights case.
We use aggravated assault criminal findings to overcome qualified immunity arguments in § 1983 cases by demonstrating the force was clearly excessive under any objective standard.
"A person who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both."Read Full Statute
Michigan law defines exactly what constitutes criminal resistance of a police officer. Many actions that officers label 'resistance' do not meet the legal definition under § 750.81d — and even lawful resistance does not justify disproportionate force in response.
"He was resisting" is the most common justification for excessive force. We analyze whether the alleged resistance actually met the legal threshold under § 750.81d and whether the force used was proportionate to any resistance that did occur.
We use the specific statutory definition of resistance to challenge officers' narratives and demonstrate that our client's conduct — even if it technically qualified as resistance — did not justify the level of force applied.
"A person who assaults another person with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon, but without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder, is guilty of felonious assault."Read Full Statute
These statutes cover a range of serious assault offenses including assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault), assault with intent to commit serious crimes, and related firearm and weapon conduct. When officers engage in this conduct against civilians, they may face both criminal prosecution and parallel civil liability.
Officers who deploy batons, tasers, or firearms in violation of their training and departmental policy may be criminally chargeable under these statutes, with their criminal conduct simultaneously supporting civil rights claims.
We document all weapons deployed and the manner of their use in civil rights cases, using the criminal standards in these sections to demonstrate that the officer's conduct crossed both legal and policy lines.
"Any person who knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or opposes any officer of the law or other person duly authorized... in the discharge of any duty or the service or execution of any process, is guilty of a misdemeanor."Read Full Statute
Criminal charges of 'resisting and obstructing' are frequently used by officers following a use-of-force incident to criminalize the victim's reaction and build a post-hoc justification narrative. Many of these charges are dropped or result in acquittals.
If you were charged with resisting and the charges were dismissed or you were acquitted, that outcome directly undermines the officer's justification for force in your civil case.
We obtain complete criminal case files for any charges our civil rights clients faced following a use-of-force incident, using favorable criminal outcomes — dismissals, acquittals — to bolster the civil rights claim.
"A person shall not intentionally point a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, at or toward another person. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."Read Full Statute
It is a criminal offense in Michigan to intentionally point a firearm at another person without lawful justification. When officers point weapons at non-threatening civilians during routine encounters, this criminal standard is relevant to assessing the constitutional reasonableness of their conduct.
Officers often point firearms at civilians in situations where no threat justified a drawn weapon. This conduct can constitute both a criminal act and an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure.
We document all instances of weapons pointing in our civil rights investigations and use the § 750.227d criminal standard to establish the unreasonableness of officer conduct when firearms were drawn without justification.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
4 statutes"It is the public policy of this state that all persons, except those incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities, are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Freedom of Information Act gives citizens the right to inspect and obtain copies of public records held by government agencies, including police departments. Requestable records include police reports, body camera footage, dispatch communications, internal affairs files, and use-of-force reports.
FOIA requests are among the most powerful tools in police misconduct cases. They can yield records — including prior complaints against an officer — that a department might otherwise conceal.
We submit comprehensive FOIA requests immediately on intake in every civil rights case to obtain body camera footage, dispatch records, internal affairs files, training records, and any other documents the department possesses.
"If a public body fails to comply with this act, the requesting person may bring an action in circuit court to compel the public body's disclosure of the public records. If the plaintiff prevails, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements."Read Full Statute
If a government agency wrongfully denies or unreasonably delays a FOIA request, you can file suit in circuit court to compel disclosure. Courts can order the agency to produce records and award punitive damages and attorney fees for bad-faith denials.
Police departments sometimes deny FOIA requests in bad faith to protect officers facing civil litigation. The threat of attorney fees and punitive damages changes the department's calculus.
We litigate FOIA enforcement actions when police departments wrongfully withhold records, recovering the documents we need — plus attorney fees — to build the strongest possible civil rights case.
"A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act... information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy; records specifically described by statute as exempt; and records of law enforcement agencies the disclosure of which would interfere with law enforcement proceedings."Read Full Statute
Certain records are exempt from FOIA disclosure, including active criminal investigation files, personnel records of private individuals, and records whose disclosure would compromise law enforcement operations. Police departments frequently over-apply these exemptions.
Understanding what is and is not legitimately exempt allows us to challenge improperly withheld documents and force disclosure of records that should be public.
We challenge overbroad FOIA exemption claims in court, compelling disclosure of records that departments improperly classify as exempt from public access.
"If a public record contains information that is exempt from disclosure under this act, the public body shall separate or delete the exempt information and make the remainder of the record available for inspection and copying."Read Full Statute
Even when part of a document is legitimately exempt from FOIA, the non-exempt portions must still be disclosed. Government agencies cannot withhold an entire document because one section qualifies for exemption.
Police departments often try to withhold complete documents when only a small portion is technically exempt. Knowing they must produce the remainder is a powerful enforcement tool.
We insist on partial disclosure in every FOIA dispute and challenge blanket document withholdings, forcing police departments to produce all non-exempt portions of responsive records.
Self-Defense & Defense of Dwelling
2 statutes"An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force may use force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Self-Defense Act allows a person to use force — including deadly force — in self-defense without a duty to retreat, when they reasonably believe force is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
Self-defense issues arise in police misconduct cases in two ways: whether a civilian had a legal right to defend against an officer acting unlawfully, and whether an officer's claim of self-defense was legitimate under the actual facts.
We analyze self-defense arguments from both directions — whether our client had a right to protect themselves from unlawful force, and whether the officer's self-defense justification is supported by the evidence.
"It is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another individual will occur if he or she does not use the deadly force or force other than deadly force."Read Full Statute
Michigan law allows use of force, including deadly force in some circumstances, to defend against a forcible, unlawful entry into one's home. The statute creates a presumption that force used against an intruder in one's dwelling is reasonable.
In cases involving police entries into homes — including no-knock raids and warrantless entries — the defense of dwelling doctrine is central to both the legality of the police action and the constitutional rights of the homeowner.
We apply defense of dwelling principles in cases involving contested police home entries to establish that officers violated our clients' Fourth Amendment rights by conducting unlawful forced entries.
Damage Awards & Limitations
6 statutes"Interest shall be allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, including a civil rights action, from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment at a rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the applicable period."Read Full Statute
Michigan law entitles a judgment winner — including civil rights plaintiffs — to collect interest on the verdict from the date the complaint was filed until paid in full. This interest can add substantial amounts to large civil rights verdicts that take years to litigate.
In complex civil rights cases that require years of litigation, judgment interest compensates plaintiffs for the time value of delayed recovery and incentivizes defendants to pay promptly.
We calculate and demand full prejudgment and post-judgment interest on every civil rights verdict, ensuring our clients receive the maximum monetary benefit for the years spent pursuing justice.
"In a personal injury or wrongful death action, if a plaintiff has received or will receive benefits from a collateral source for the same injury or death, the total amount of damages otherwise payable shall be reduced by the amount of those collateral benefits, except to the extent that the plaintiff has paid premiums for those benefits."Read Full Statute
Michigan law may reduce civil damage awards by amounts received from collateral sources such as health insurance or disability benefits — unless the plaintiff paid premiums for those benefits.
Government defendants in civil rights cases sometimes attempt to reduce jury verdicts using the collateral source rule. Benefits paid for by the plaintiff personally are not subject to reduction.
We carefully document all benefit sources and premium payment histories in civil rights cases to protect our clients from improper reductions that would diminish their hard-won jury awards.
"Except as provided in section 6304, in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each person shall be allocated to each person in direct proportion to the person's percentage of fault. Liability shall be several only and shall not be joint."Read Full Statute
Michigan's abolition of joint and several liability generally applies even in civil rights cases brought under state law. Each defendant (officer, municipality) pays only their proportionate share — unless federal § 1983 provides different rules.
In cases with multiple defendants (the officer, the department, the municipality), fault allocation matters. Under federal law, § 1983 liability rules may differ from Michigan's several liability scheme.
We understand the interplay between federal § 1983 liability and Michigan's several liability rules and use the most favorable framework to maximize each client's collection.
"In an action based on tort seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the court shall instruct the jury to answer special interrogatories indicating the percentage of the total fault of all persons that contributed to the death or injury, including each plaintiff, defendant, third-party defendant, and identified nonparty."Read Full Statute
In multi-defendant civil rights cases, the jury allocates fault percentages to each party. Each defendant pays only their proportionate share. Uncollectable shares may be partially reallocated to remaining parties.
Municipalities carry substantial insurance coverage and are typically the most solvent defendants. Understanding fault allocation between the municipality and individual officers shapes litigation strategy.
We structure complaints and trial presentations to maximize municipal fault allocation, targeting the most solvent and insured defendant for the largest share of damages.
"In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each defendant shall be allocated to each party in direct proportion to the party's percentage of fault."Read Full Statute
Michigan's comparative fault system requires the jury to assign fault percentages to all parties, including the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover under state law.
Government defendants routinely argue that civil rights plaintiffs were partially at fault for their own injuries. Countering this with strong evidence of the officer's disproportionate conduct is essential.
We use use-of-force experts and thorough factual investigations to minimize fault assigned to our clients and maximize the share attributed to the government defendants.
"In an action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, if the total award for future damages exceeds $100,000.00, the court may order that the future damages be paid as a series of periodic payments rather than a lump sum if the court finds that such payment is in the best interest of the plaintiff."Read Full Statute
Courts may allow defendants to pay large future damage awards in periodic installments rather than a lump sum. In civil rights cases with catastrophic injury, this can affect how quickly and reliably a victim receives compensation.
Periodic payments shift risk to the plaintiff if the defendant becomes insolvent in the future. Lump-sum recovery is almost always preferable and we advocate for it.
We oppose periodic payment orders in civil rights cases and argue for lump-sum verdicts to give our clients immediate, certain access to their full compensation.
Expert Witnesses & Evidence
3 statutes"In an action alleging medical malpractice, a person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless the person is licensed as a health professional and, if the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist, specializes in the same specialty as the party."Read Full Statute
Expert witnesses in cases involving professional conduct — including law enforcement — must have appropriate qualifications in the relevant specialty. Use-of-force experts typically must have documented law enforcement training, supervisory experience, and familiarity with departmental policies.
Use-of-force expert testimony is nearly always required in police misconduct cases. An expert whose credentials don't hold up under cross-examination can undermine an otherwise strong case.
We retain nationally recognized law enforcement experts — including former police chiefs, training directors, and use-of-force specialists — whose credentials and methodologies withstand the most aggressive cross-examination.
"In an action for damages alleging negligence or malpractice by a licensed professional, a witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness must have applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."Read Full Statute
Michigan courts apply Daubert-based standards requiring expert testimony to be based on reliable, scientifically sound methodology. Use-of-force experts, forensic pathologists, and neurological experts in police brutality cases must satisfy these requirements to testify before a jury.
Government defendants challenge expert methodology as a strategy to exclude damaging testimony before trial. Working with credentialed experts who apply peer-reviewed, court-tested standards is essential.
Our use-of-force experts apply well-established standards — Graham v. Connor analysis, POST training guidelines, departmental policies — that consistently pass Daubert scrutiny in Michigan courts.
"It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for personal injury that the plaintiff was operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance and, as a result of that conduct, the plaintiff was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event that gave rise to the action."Read Full Statute
If a plaintiff was 50% or more at fault for their injuries due to intoxication, their claim is barred under Michigan state law. Government defendants sometimes raise this defense when a police brutality victim had alcohol or drugs in their system.
Police departments attempt to use a victim's intoxication as justification for excessive force or to bar recovery entirely. Intoxication does not justify unlawful, disproportionate force against a non-threatening person.
We challenge intoxication defenses by demonstrating that the plaintiff's condition — however impaired — did not constitute a threat that justified the level of force applied. Being intoxicated is not a license for officers to use excessive force.
Procedural Statutes
5 statutes"Where 2 or more persons are jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, or the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them. [Pre-1995 tort reform joint liability rules]"Read Full Statute
These sections governed pre-1996 joint liability rules under which any defendant could be held liable for the full judgment. These rules have limited application today but may apply in cases involving conduct that predates Michigan's 1995 tort reform.
In older civil rights cases or cases involving ongoing patterns of conduct that began before tort reform, understanding pre-reform joint liability rules can affect how damages are structured and collected.
We apply the appropriate liability framework based on when the underlying conduct occurred, which can significantly affect collectability strategy in longer-running civil rights matters.
"If the person first entitled to bring an action is under 18 years of age, insane, or imprisoned at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed to bring the action although the period of limitations has run."Read Full Statute
The statute of limitations on civil rights claims is tolled (paused) while the plaintiff is a minor or legally incompetent. The clock does not begin running until the minor turns 18 or the incompetency is removed.
Children who are victims of police misconduct have until age 21 (3 years after turning 18) to file civil rights claims in most cases — protecting young victims whose parents may delay in seeking legal help.
We use tolling for minors to preserve civil rights claims on behalf of children injured by police conduct, even when significant time passes before their family consults an attorney.
"If a person dies before the period of limitations has run or within 30 days after the period has run, an action which survives by law may be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person at any time within 2 years after letters of authority are issued although the period of limitations has run."Read Full Statute
If a police brutality victim dies before a lawsuit is filed, or within 30 days of the use of force, the estate has a fresh 2-year window to file the wrongful death claim even if the underlying civil rights limitations period has run.
Families who lose a loved one to police violence have time to regroup and pursue a wrongful death claim even if prior deadlines have passed during the chaos of loss and grief.
We apply the wrongful death savings clause in police brutality death cases where victims survived initially but later died from their injuries, preserving the estate's claim.
"If a person who is or may be liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the claim, the action may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the person who is entitled to bring the action discovers, or should have discovered, the existence of the claim or the identity of the person who is liable for the claim."Read Full Statute
If a police department or government agency fraudulently concealed evidence of misconduct — destroying records, filing false reports, or hiding body camera footage — the statute of limitations is tolled until the cover-up is discovered. The plaintiff then has 2 years from discovery.
Police cover-ups are unfortunately not rare. When a department destroys evidence, falsifies incident reports, or conceals misconduct, they cannot then argue your lawsuit is time-barred based on a limitations period that ran while they were hiding their wrongdoing.
We identify and document all instances of evidence destruction, report falsification, and cover-up in civil rights cases, using fraudulent concealment to preserve our clients' claims even when misconduct was hidden for years.
"The statute of limitations or repose is tolled when: (a) The party commences an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. (b) The party files a complaint and the summons is served within the time set in this subdivision. (c) In medical malpractice actions, the applicable notice period under section 2912b begins."Read Full Statute
The limitations period may also be tolled when the defendant is absent from Michigan, when a timely complaint is filed and served within 90 days, or during the NOI period in malpractice-adjacent claims. Multiple tolling triggers can apply simultaneously.
Multiple tolling provisions can stack to preserve a civil rights claim that appears time-barred at first glance. Never assume your deadline has passed without consulting a civil rights attorney.
We analyze all applicable tolling provisions in every civil rights case before making any decision about limitations, ensuring we preserve every possible avenue of recovery.
Assault on Pregnant Individuals
2 statutes"A person who intentionally or knowingly causes a miscarriage or stillbirth of a pregnant individual, or causes the death of an embryo or fetus, by committing a criminal act against the pregnant individual is guilty of a crime under this chapter."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Prenatal Protection Act (Laci and Conner's Law) creates a separate criminal offense for assault causing a miscarriage or stillbirth. When police violence against a pregnant woman causes the loss of a pregnancy, criminal charges under this statute may run parallel to a civil rights claim.
Police brutality against pregnant women can cause catastrophic harm that goes beyond the physical injuries to the mother. The criminal statute reflects the seriousness of this harm and supports substantial civil damages claims.
We pursue full damages for pregnancy loss caused by police violence, including the emotional devastation of losing a child due to government misconduct, alongside the mother's physical injury claims.
"A person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a crime punishable under the applicable subsection: (a) A person who commits an act proscribed under this chapter against a pregnant individual and thereby causes a miscarriage or stillbirth of that individual, or causes the death or serious physical harm of an embryo or fetus... [graduated offenses by trimester and severity of harm]."Read Full Statute
These sections of Michigan's Prenatal Protection Act criminalize causing bodily injury to an embryo or fetus at various stages of development through assault. The statutes establish graded penalties based on the severity of harm — from injury to death — and the stage of development of the unborn child.
When police violence causes injury to an unborn child — from first trimester through near-term pregnancy — criminal charges under these statutes may arise, and the findings support civil damages claims for the mother and the child's estate in the most serious cases.
We pursue all available civil remedies in police misconduct cases involving harm to pregnant women and their unborn children, using the criminal statute framework to establish the full scope of the harm caused.
No statutes match your search. Try a different keyword or MCL number.
Important Notice: Statutory text excerpts shown on this page are provided for reference and educational purposes only. Michigan statutes are subject to legislative amendment and judicial interpretation. Always verify current statutory language at the Michigan Legislature website before relying on any provision. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. Contact our attorneys for guidance specific to your situation.
Have Questions About How These Laws Apply to Your Case?
Our attorneys have 35+ years of experience using these exact statutes to win. We've recovered over $300 million for Michigan injury and civil rights victims. Your consultation is free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.