Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a (2026)

Determination of damages; limitation.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.2946a Determination of damages; limitation.

Sec. 2946a.

    (1) In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $280,000.00, unless the defect in the product caused either the person's death or permanent loss of a vital bodily function, in which case the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $500,000.00. On the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, the state treasurer shall adjust the limitations set forth in this subsection so that the limitations are equal to the limitations provided in section 1483. After that date, the state treasurer shall adjust the limitations set forth in this subsection at the end of each calendar year so that they continue to be equal to the limitations provided in section 1483.

    (2) In awarding damages in a product liability action, the trier of fact shall itemize damages into economic and noneconomic losses. Neither the court nor counsel for a party shall inform the jury of the limitations under subsection (1). The court shall adjust an award of noneconomic loss to conform to the limitations under subsection (1).

    (3) The limitation on damages under subsection (1) for death or permanent loss of a vital bodily function does not apply to a defendant if the trier of fact determines by a perponderance of the evidence that the death or loss was the result of the defendant's gross negligence, or if the court finds that the matters stated in section 2949a are true.

    (4) If damages for economic loss cannot readily be ascertained by the trier of fact, then the trier of fact shall calculate damages for economic loss based on an amount that is equal to the state average median family income as reported in the immediately preceding federal decennial census and adjusted by the state treasurer in the same manner as provided in subsection (1).

History: Add. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Compiler's Notes:

    In subsection (3), the word “perponderance” evidently should read “preponderance.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 30× “Instead, the parties have challenged three separate pretrial and posttrial rulings, each related to the cap on noneconomic damages contained in MCL 600.2946a. In particular, during pretrial proceedings, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the cap on…”
Kenkel v. Stanley Works, 665 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “Defendant, however, contended that the trial court should reduce plaintiff’s noneconomic damages to conform to the requirements of MCL 600.2946a. Plaintiff argued that MCL 600.”
Jenkins v. Patel, 684 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 600.2946a, a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: "In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss…”
People v. Anstey, 719 N.W.2d 579 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.2946a(2) and MCL 600.6304(5). The Legislature has not restricted the trial court's authority to give jury instructions in the context of a violation of MCL 257.”
Phillips v. Mirac, Inc, 685 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “346 , 639 N.W.2d 572 [2001]) and 500.3135; if he was operating his own vehicle while uninsured, MCL 500.”
Peak v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 924 F. Supp. 2d 822 (E.D. Mich. 2013). · cites it 14× “Moreover, there are [sic] an excerpt of medical documents indicating that Plaintiff suffered from acute deep vein thrombosis as a result of this injury.”
Jenkins v. Patel, 662 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “In the PLCA, a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss…”
Rodriguez v. Ase Indus., Inc, 738 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “2949a even if the jury has determined under MCL 600.2946a(3) that the defendant was not grossly negligent.”
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 6× “§ 600.2946a(l-3) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).”
Lewis v. Krogol, 582 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 600.2946a; M.S.A. § 27A.2946a, which applies to noneconomic damages in products liability actions, contains the phrase "permanent loss of a vital bodily function.”
Est. of Harishkumar Patel v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “On cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by not setting aside the damages cap imposed under MCL 600.2946a in light of the provisions of MCL 600.”
Genaw v. Garage Equip. Supply, INC (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 8× “LAWS § 600.2946a (emphasis added). Therefore, in a products liability action, a plaintiff can avoid the damages cap if the trier of fact determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the death or loss was the result of defendant’s gross negligence.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a(1) — 8 cases
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Instead, the parties have challenged three separate pretrial and posttrial rulings, each related to the cap on noneconomic damages contained in MCL 600.2946a. In particular, during pretrial proceedings, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the cap on…”
Jenkins v. Patel, 684 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.2946a, a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: "In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss…”
Jenkins v. Patel, 662 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “In the PLCA, a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss…”
Est. of Harishkumar Patel v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “On cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by not setting aside the damages cap imposed under MCL 600.2946a in light of the provisions of MCL 600.”
Rodriguez v. ASE Indus., Inc., 739 N.W.2d 333 (Mich. 2007).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a(2) — 3 cases
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Instead, the parties have challenged three separate pretrial and posttrial rulings, each related to the cap on noneconomic damages contained in MCL 600.2946a. In particular, during pretrial proceedings, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the cap on…”
People v. Anstey, 719 N.W.2d 579 (Mich. 2006). “MCL 600.2946a(2) and MCL 600.6304(5). The Legislature has not restricted the trial court's authority to give jury instructions in the context of a violation of MCL 257.”
Kaiser v. Jayco, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a(3) — 6 cases
WENDORF v. JLG Indus., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “§ 600.2946a(l-3) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).”
Rodriguez v. Ase Indus., Inc, 738 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “2949a even if the jury has determined under MCL 600.2946a(3) that the defendant was not grossly negligent.”
Peak v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 924 F. Supp. 2d 822 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “Moreover, there are [sic] an excerpt of medical documents indicating that Plaintiff suffered from acute deep vein thrombosis as a result of this injury.”
Genaw v. Garage Equip. Supply, INC (E.D. Mich. 2022). “LAWS § 600.2946a (emphasis added). Therefore, in a products liability action, a plaintiff can avoid the damages cap if the trier of fact determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the death or loss was the result of defendant’s gross negligence.”
Est. of Harishkumar Patel v. Reinalt-Thomas Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “On cross-appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by not setting aside the damages cap imposed under MCL 600.2946a in light of the provisions of MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a(l) — 7 cases
Wessels v. Garden Way, Inc, 689 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Instead, the parties have challenged three separate pretrial and posttrial rulings, each related to the cap on noneconomic damages contained in MCL 600.2946a. In particular, during pretrial proceedings, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the cap on…”
Jenkins v. Patel, 684 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.2946a, a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: "In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss…”
Kenkel v. Stanley Works, 665 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Defendant, however, contended that the trial court should reduce plaintiff’s noneconomic damages to conform to the requirements of MCL 600.2946a. Plaintiff argued that MCL 600.”
Rodriguez v. Ase Indus., Inc, 738 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “2949a even if the jury has determined under MCL 600.2946a(3) that the defendant was not grossly negligent.”
Jenkins v. Patel, 662 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “In the PLCA, a statute analogous to the damages cap, the Legislature not only specifically addressed death, but identified death as one of the two injuries that results in the second-tier cap: In an action for product liability, the total amount of damages for noneconomic loss…”
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.