Damage Awards & Limitations

MCL 600.6098 addresses judicial review of verdicts in personal-injury actions, including new trial, additur, and remittitur issues. It is not Michigan's judgment-interest statute.

After a verdict, defendants may seek to reduce, adjust, or retry the award. The correct post-verdict framework must be identified before making any interest, remittitur, additur, or new-trial argument.

We preserve the trial record, defend supported verdicts, and separately evaluate any statutory interest or post-judgment collection issues under the correct authority.

After a plaintiff verdict in a Michigan personal-injury action, the court may consider whether economic losses were paid or are payable by a collateral source and reduce the economic-loss portion of the judgment under the statute's premium, lien, subrogation, and payable-or-receivable rules.

Government defendants may seek reductions for benefits such as insurance, workers' compensation, Medicare, or employee benefits. The reduction is not automatic and does not replace claim-specific federal damages rules.

We document benefit sources, premium payments, liens, and subrogation issues so any collateral-source argument is applied only where the statute permits it.

Michigan generally makes each defendant's tort liability several only, not joint, except as provided elsewhere. The statute also preserves an employer's vicarious liability for an employee's act or omission.

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.

For state tort claims involving more than one at-fault person, MCL 600.6304 generally requires allocation of percentages of fault and several-only liability unless a statutory exception applies. Federal civil-rights claims may follow a different liability framework.

In cases with multiple defendants, the governing claim matters. Michigan tort allocation rules do not automatically control federal section 1983 liability.

We separate federal and state theories, identify the liability framework for each claim, and build the record needed to preserve collectability.

Michigan's comparative fault system requires the jury to assign fault percentages to all parties, including the plaintiff. Fault assigned to the plaintiff reduces damages by that percentage; if the plaintiff's fault is greater than the combined fault of everyone else, noneconomic damages are not awarded 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.

A person seeking to establish fault under Michigan's comparative-fault provisions has the burden of alleging and proving that fault. The statute also says those provisions do not create a separate cause of action.

This provision matters when a defendant tries to reduce recovery through fault allocation. It is not a periodic-payment statute.

We challenge unsupported fault-allocation arguments and require defendants to prove any comparative-fault theory with evidence.