General Negligence & Liability

Governs Michigan libel and slander claims, including actual-damages rules, retraction requirements for exemplary or punitive damages in libel actions, truth/justification issues, mitigation, fair-report privilege, and contribution for libel judgments.

Relevant in employment and civil rights cases where an employer, officer, or other defendant made false statements that harmed a plaintiff's reputation, job, business, profession, or personal interests.

Referenced in employment law and civil rights cases involving reputational harm.

Allows a malpractice civil action against a person who professes or holds himself or herself out as a member of a state licensed profession, and applies common-law malpractice rules to that claim.

Relevant when a claim is based on negligent professional services by a licensed professional. Medical malpractice has additional statutes, notice rules, expert rules, and timing rules that must be analyzed separately.

Applied in medical malpractice and professional liability cases throughout the firm's history.

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.

Sets key proof and evidence rules for Michigan product liability cases, including production-defect proof, feasible alternative production practices, limits on later-learned safety evidence, and a rebuttable presumption of nonliability when the relevant product aspect complied with or was approved under applicable federal or state safety standards.

Manufacturers and sellers often rely on regulatory-compliance and feasible-alternative-practice arguments. The statute can make product cases heavily dependent on expert proof and careful analysis of the specific defect theory.

We use product engineers, safety experts, and regulatory records to evaluate whether the product was reasonably safe, whether a feasible alternative existed, and whether any compliance presumption can be rebutted.

Michigan limits noneconomic damages in product liability cases. The base statute sets standard and higher-cap amounts and requires the State Treasurer to adjust them so they stay equal to the caps in MCL 600.1483. The limitation does not apply in certain gross-negligence or statutory-exception situations.

Your attorney must know this cap exists, whether the higher cap or an exception may apply, and how the current adjusted numbers affect settlement and trial value.

We document every element of economic damages — lost wages, medical bills, future care — to maximize recovery when the noneconomic cap applies.

Manufacturers and sellers have statutory defenses when harm was caused by product alteration, product misuse, voluntary exposure to a known unreasonable risk, sophisticated-user warning issues, inherent product characteristics, or when the defendant is a nonmanufacturer seller that did not independently breach a duty or express warranty.

Defendants commonly argue misuse, alteration, known risk, or seller immunity. These defenses can defeat liability unless the facts show foreseeability, independent seller fault, warranty failure, or another path around the defense.

We retain product engineers and safety experts to reconstruct product use, identify foreseeable misuse or alteration issues, and determine whether a seller or manufacturer remains liable.

Michigan courts screen scientific expert opinions in injury and property-damage cases for reliability and usefulness to the jury. The statute lists factors such as testing, peer review, standards, error rate, general acceptance, reliable basis, and whether the methodology is used outside litigation.

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.

This subsection says Michigan's comparative-fault statutes do not eliminate or diminish existing defenses or immunities unless the statutes expressly say so. It also explains that nonparty fault assessments allocate fault among named parties but do not impose liability on the nonparty in that action.

In negligence cases, defendants may still assert common-law defenses, statutory immunities, and nonparty-fault arguments. Premises cases may also involve open-and-obvious arguments, but those arguments must be analyzed under current Michigan premises-liability case law and comparative-fault principles.

We identify every claimed defense or immunity, evaluate whether a nonparty-fault notice changes the allocation analysis, and build the facts needed to counter comparative-fault arguments.

Governmental agencies are generally immune from tort liability when engaged in a governmental function unless a statutory exception applies. Government officers, employees, volunteers, and certain board members are generally immune when acting within scope, the agency is engaged in a governmental function, and their conduct is not gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

This makes suing government actors significantly harder than suing private parties. A viable negligence theory usually requires fitting a statutory exception or proving gross negligence by an individual actor, while intentional tort and constitutional claims require separate analysis.

We build gross negligence arguments using use-of-force policies, training records, and expert testimony on officer conduct.

Michigan landlord-tenant law includes statutory duties for leased residential premises, including that premises and common areas be fit for intended use and that premises be kept in reasonable repair during the lease term, subject to statutory limits and facts.

This statute can matter in apartment, rental-home, stairway, parking-area, and common-area injury cases, but it is not a blanket rule for every premises claim.

We evaluate lease terms, control of the area, repair requests, inspection history, and whether the alleged hazard fits the statutory duty.