reckless-misconduct standard in Michigan

2019In adopting the reckless misconduct standard, the Ritchie- Gamester Court recognized “the everyday reality of participation in recreational activities,” where “[a] person who engages in a recreational activity is temporarily adopting a set of rules that define that particular pastime or sport.” Ritchie-Gamester, 461 Mich at 86 .

2016Under the broad language in Ritchie-Gamester, 461 Mich at 75 , “coparticipants in recreational activities owe each other a duty not to act recklessly.” However, as plaintiff emphasizes, Ritchie-Gamester does not establish that any coparticipant conduct that causes injury during a recreational activity must meet the reckless misconduct standard.

2025The reckless-misconduct standard “only applies to injuries that arise from risks inherent to the activity.” Bertin v Mann, 502 Mich 603, 609 ; 918 NW2d 707 (2018). “[T]he assessment of whether a risk is inherent to an activity depends on whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would have foreseen the particular risk that led to injury.” Id. at 619 .

2025The reckless-misconduct standard “only applies to injuries that arise from risks inherent to the activity.” Bertin v Mann, 502 Mich 603, 609 ; 918 NW2d 707 (2018). “[T]he assessment of whether a risk is inherent to an activity depends on whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would have foreseen the particular risk that led to injury.” Id. at 619 .

2025In contrast, in Sherry v East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich App 23, 26-27 ; 807 NW2d 859 (2011), we declined to apply the reckless-misconduct standard when analyzing the actions of a youth cheerleading coach who allegedly failed to properly train or supervise cheerleaders performing dangerous stunts, leading to injuries.

2025In contrast, in Sherry v East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich App 23, 26-27 ; 807 NW2d 859 (2011), we declined to apply the reckless-misconduct standard when analyzing the actions of a youth cheerleading coach who allegedly failed to properly train or supervise cheerleaders performing dangerous stunts, leading to injuries.

2011The case of Behar v Fox, 249 Mich App 314, 316-318 ; 642 NW2d 426 (2002), in which a panel of this Court applied the reckless-misconduct standard from RitchieGamester to a soccer coach, is distinguishable from the case at hand.

2011The case of Behar v Fox, 249 Mich App 314, 316-318 ; 642 NW2d 426 (2002), in which a panel of this Court applied the reckless-misconduct standard from RitchieGamester to a soccer coach, is distinguishable from the case at hand.

2024See Neal, 470 Mich at 669 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Kalajian v Panoff, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 12, 2023 (Docket No. 360082), p 3 (explaining that riding a bicycle was a recreational activity for purposes of applying the reckless-misconduct standard as opposed to the ordinary negligence standard).2 Because the RUA applies to plaintiffs’ claims, and because there was no evidence that defendant acted with “gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct,” MCL 324.73301(1), the trial court did not err when it granted defendant

2016Here, the parties do not dispute that golfing, in general, constitutes a recreational activity, as demonstrated by the Michigan Supreme Court’s reliance on, and quotation of Hathaway v Tascosa Country Club, Inc, 846 SW2d 614, 616-617 (Tex App, 1993) (citations omitted), which expressly extended the “reckless or intentional” standard applicable in the context of “competitive contact sports” to the sport of golf where the plaintiff had been hit by an errant shot.

2016See also Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 170, 171-172 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011) (recognizing the general “common-law duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid harm when one acts”); Chunko v LeMaitre, 10 Mich App 490, 494-495 ; 159 NW2d 876 (1968) (recognizing a common-law duty of ordinary care in operating a motor vehicle).

2016See also Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 170, 171-172 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011) (recognizing the general “common-law duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid harm when one acts”); Chunko v LeMaitre, 10 Mich App 490, 494-495 ; 159 NW2d 876 (1968) (recognizing a common-law duty of ordinary care in operating a motor vehicle).