|
No. 132849
| Rebecca Kik and Robert Kik, Individually, and as |
|
Jonny L. Waara |
| Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of |
|
|
| Sharon Ann Leelani Kik, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Chippewa - Lambros, N.) |
|
|
| John-Christopher Sbraccia, Kinross Charter Town- |
|
William L. Henn |
| ship EMS, and Kinross Charter Township, |
|
|
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Attorney General Michael A. Cox's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Association for Justice's (formerly Michigan Trial Lawyers Association) Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Defense Trial Counsel's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
These two cases involve plaintiffs seeking to recover for “loss of consortium,” a legal term that refers to all the tangible and intangible benefits that one spouse derives from the other, such as material support and companionship. The husband of Beverly Wesche, a plaintiff in the first lawsuit, was injured in a collision involving a government-owned vehicle. Wesche was not injured in the accident; her sole claim is for loss of consortium. In the second lawsuit, Robert Kik sought loss of consortium damages as a result of injuries his wife sustained while being transported by an ambulance. In both lawsuits, at least some of the defendants who were being sued are governmental entities, raising the question of whether the defendants are protected from suit by governmental immunity. Wesche and Kik argue that their claims for loss of consortium fall within the Governmental Tort Liability Act’s waiver of immunity for “bodily injury” resulting from the negligent operation of a government-owned motor vehicle, MCL 691.1405. In Wesche, the trial court dismissed the loss of consortium claim, ruling that it was not one for “bodily injury” within the meaning of the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. The plaintiffs appeal. In Kik, the trial court allowed the plaintiff’s claim to proceed, denying the defendants’ motion for partial summary disposition on the grounds of governmental immunity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals stated that, were it not obliged to adhere to the earlier Court of Appeals panel’s holding in Wesche, it would have held that Kik was entitled to recover damages for loss of consortium. The Court of Appeals then convened a special conflict panel in Kik, to consider anew the question of whether loss of consortium damages are recoverable under § 1405 as damages for “bodily injury.” The special panel held, in a four-to-three published opinion, that the trial court had properly denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary disposition of Kik’s claim for loss of consortium. Adopting the reasoning of the original Kik decision, the special panel held that MCL 691.1405 does not foreclose a loss of consortium claim. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
