Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
White v. Beasleygreen2 sentences2021On the other hand, if the duty is a duty to the individual, then a neglect to perform it, or to perform it properly, is an individual wrong, and may support an individual action for damages. [White v Beasley, 453 Mich 308, 316 ; 552 NW2d 1 (1996) (opinion by BRICKLEY, C.J.), quoting 2 Cooley, Torts (4th ed), § 300, pp 385-386.] -5- “Applied to police officers, the public-duty doctrine insulates officers from tort liability for the negligent failure to provide police protection unless an individual plaintiff satisfies the special- relationship exception.” White, 453 Mich at 316 . 2021On the other hand, if the duty is a duty to the individual, then a neglect to perform it, or to perform it properly, is an individual wrong, and may support an individual action for damages. [White v Beasley, 453 Mich 308, 316 ; 552 NW2d 1 (1996) (opinion by BRICKLEY, C.J.), quoting 2 Cooley, Torts (4th ed), § 300, pp 385-386.] -5- “Applied to police officers, the public-duty doctrine insulates officers from tort liability for the negligent failure to provide police protection unless an individual plaintiff satisfies the special- relationship exception.” White, 453 Mich at 316 . | 2 | 6 |
Cuffy v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2020To meet the special-relationship exception, a plaintiff must satisfy the following test: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agent that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking . . . . [Id. at 320, quoting Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 ; 513 NYS2d 372 ; 505 NE2d 937 (1987 2020To meet the special-relationship exception, a plaintiff must satisfy the following test: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agent that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking . . . . [Id. at 320, quoting Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 ; 513 NYS2d 372 ; 505 NE2d 937 (1987 | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harts v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence2016Plaintiff argues that defendants expressly agreed to assume the duty of advising plaintiff of the adequacy of her policy limits and, therefore, defendants owed her a duty under the special relationship test in Harts, 461 Mich at 5 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ross v. Glaser
green
2 sentences2003Instead, we must determine whether defendant had a duty to refrain from handing [his son] a loaded weapon. * * * As to foreseeability, we determine whether it is foreseeable that the conduct may create a risk of harm to the victim and whether the result and intervening causes were foreseeable. [ Id. at 186-187 , 559 N.W.2d 331 (citations omitted).] The Ross panel concluded that summary disposition was improper because the likelihood of injury was high where the mentally ill son was handed a loaded gun while in an agitated state and in conflict with antagonists. 2003Instead, we must determine whether defendant had a duty to refrain from handing [his son] a loaded weapon. * * * As to foreseeability, we determine whether it is foreseeable that the conduct may create a risk of harm to the victim and whether the result and intervening causes were foreseeable. [ Id. at 186-187 , 559 N.W.2d 331 (citations omitted).] The Ross panel concluded that summary disposition was improper because the likelihood of injury was high where the mentally ill son was handed a loaded gun while in an agitated state and in conflict with antagonists. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bell & Hudson, PC v. Buhl Realty Co.
green
1 sentence1997Therefore, the special relationship doctrine is inapplicable, and the trial court erred in relying on Bell & Hudson, supra. Instead, we must determine whether defendant had a duty to refrain from handing Anthony a loaded weapon. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Chivas v. Koehler
green
1 sentence1997Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 456-460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992); Chivas, supra at 476 . *614 The special-relationship exception to the public-duty doctrine exposes a government employee to liability for the employee’s actions whenever a court finds that the government employee has a “special-relationship” with the plaintiff. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Harrison v. Director of Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences1997Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 456-460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992); Chivas, supra at 476 . *614 The special-relationship exception to the public-duty doctrine exposes a government employee to liability for the employee’s actions whenever a court finds that the government employee has a “special-relationship” with the plaintiff. 1997Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 456-460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992); Chivas, supra at 476 . *614 The special-relationship exception to the public-duty doctrine exposes a government employee to liability for the employee’s actions whenever a court finds that the government employee has a “special-relationship” with the plaintiff. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
De Long v. County of Erie
green
2 sentences1997However, “[p]olice officers should not be liable ‘for failing to protect a member of the general public from a criminal act of which they were not aware but should have anticipated and prevented.’ ” Id. at 318 , quoting De Long v Erie Co, 60 NY2d 296, 304 ; 469 NYS2d 611 ; 457 NE2d 717 (1983). *584 Because plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the special-relationship exception, plaintiff has failed to establish that defendants owed a duty to Bandy. 1997However, “[p]olice officers should not be liable ‘for failing to protect a member of the general public from a criminal act of which they were not aware but should have anticipated and prevented.’ ” Id. at 318 , quoting De Long v Erie Co, 60 NY2d 296, 304 ; 469 NYS2d 611 ; 457 NE2d 717 (1983). *584 Because plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the special-relationship exception, plaintiff has failed to establish that defendants owed a duty to Bandy. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
White v. Humbert
green
2 sentences1996Id. 1996Id. at 462 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.