Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 256.541 (2026)

Garage keeper; prima facie evidence of negligence.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GARAGE KEEPER'S LIABILITY

Act 391 of 1919

256.541 Garage keeper; prima facie evidence of negligence.

Sec. 1.

Whenever any damage shall be done to any motor vehicle while in the possession or under the care, custody or control of the owner, his agent or servant, or the keeper of any public garage or other establishment where such vehicle shall have been accepted for hire or gain, proof of such damage shall be prima facie evidence that such damage was the result of the negligent act of such owner or keeper of the place where such vehicle was stored.

History: 1919, Act 391, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 4796 ;-- CL 1948, 256.541

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1950–1999 · leading case: Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Carson City Texaco, Inc., 365 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Carson City Texaco, Inc., 365 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 8× “They assert that the decision also nullifies the provisions of the garage keeper's liability act, MCL 256.541 et seq.; MSA 9.1721 et seq., despite the absence of any legislative intent to do so.”

Buckeye Union Ins. v. Johnson, 310 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Aetna, holding that the garage keepers' liability act, MCL 256.541 et seq.; MSA 9.1721 et seq., controlled and not the no-fault act.”

Travelers Ins. v. U-Haul of Michigan, Inc, 597 N.W.2d 235 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “8 See also Buckeye Union Ins Co v Johnson, 108 Mich App 46 ; 310 NW2d 268 (1981), which held that the no-fault act took precedence over the garage keepers’ liability act, MCL 256.541 et seq.; MSA 9.1721 et seq., Although not strictly on point, this case is instructive.”

Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 323 N.W.2d 650 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Relying on Liberty Mutual Ins Co v Allied Truck Equipment Co, 103 Mich App 33 ; 302 NW2d 588 (1981), defendants contended that the garage keepers' liability act, MCL 256.541 et seq.; MSA 9.1721 et seq., was controlling rather than the no-fault automobile insurance act, MCL 500.”

Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Allied Truck Equip. Co., 302 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “In an opinion dated May 18, 1979, the trial court found the Legislature intended liability in bailment situations to be governed by the garage keepers’ liability act, MCL 256.541 et seq.; MSA 9.1721 et seq., and not by the no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.”

Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Carson City Texaco, Inc., 333 N.W.2d 235 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “In Liberty Mutual Ins Co v Allied Truck Equipment Co, 103 Mich App 33 ; 302 NW2d 588 (1981), a panel of this Court held that the garage keepers' liability act, MCL 256.541 et seq.; MSA 9.1721 et seq., rather than the no-fault insurance act, controlled.”

Michigan Basic Prop. Ins. v. Michigan Mut. Ins., 332 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Under the guise of this "public policy” argument, both parties have urged us to take sides in a split of appellate decisions balancing the no-fault act against the garage keeper’s liability act, MCL 256.”

Hengartner v. Chet Swanson Sales, Inc, 348 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Therefore, in the event of any conflict between the two statutes in the context presented here, the latter statute will prevail.”

Loving v. Howard Lare, Inc., 73 N.W.2d 290 (Mich. 1955). “CL 1948, § 256.541 (Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 9.1721) provides: “Whenever any damage shall be done to any motor vehicle while in the possession or under the care, custody or control of the owner, his.”

Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Iroff, 156 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “Codified by CL 1948, § 256.541 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.1721),”

Ohio Cas. Ins. Grp. v. Robinson, 338 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “, concurred. MacKENZIE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).”

Eckerle v. Twenty Grand Corp., 153 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “It was plaintiff's contention that the parking lot was operated by the defendant through its agents, servants, and employees and defendant was liable for allowing someone other than the plaintiff to remove the vehicle from the lot, citing CL 1948, § 256.541 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev §…”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.