M Civ JI 30.01 Professional Negligence/Malpractice

A “breach of the standard of care or practice,” “professional negligence” and “malpractice” are the same. They mean the failure to do something that a [ name profession ] of ordinary learning, judgment and skill in [ this community or a similar one / [ name particular specialty ] ] would do, or the doing of something that such a [name profession] would not do, under the same or similar circumstances as in this case.

It is for you to decide, based upon the evidence, what the [ name profession / name particular specialty ] of ordinary learning, judgment and skill would do or would not do under the same or similar circumstances.

Note on Use

There is case law support for the applicability of the malpractice instructions to the professionals noted: Siirila v Barrios, 398 Mich 576; 248 NW2d 171 (1976) (doctor); Roberts v Young, 369 Mich 133; 119 NW2d 627 (1963) (doctor); Babbitt v Bumpus, 73 Mich 331; 41 NW 417 (1889) (attorney); Eggleston v Boardman, 37 Mich 14 (1877) (attorney); Tasse v Kaufman, 54 Mich App 595; 221 NW2d 470 (1974) (dentist); Ambassador Baptist Church v Seabreeze Heating & Cooling Co, 28 Mich App 424; 184 NW2d 568 (1970) (architect); Tschirhart v Pethtel, 61 Mich App 581; 233 NW2d 93 (1975) (chiropractor).

Standards for liability of a certified public accountant are set forth in MCL 600.2962, added by 1995 PA 249.

If the defendant is a specialist, the name of that specialty should be stated where that option is given instead of the name of the defendant’s profession.

Comment

The language in the instruction is supported by numerous cases, including Roberts; Johnson v Borland, 317 Mich 225; 26 NW2d 755 (1947); Siirila; Fortner v Koch, 272 Mich 273; 261 NW 762 (1935); Tasse. MCL 600.2912a.

History

M Civ JI 30.01 was added February 1, 1981. Amended May 2013, July 2017, April 2018, October 2023.