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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955a (2026)

Impaired ability to function due to influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance as absolute defense; definitions.

✓ 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


600.2955a Impaired ability to function due to influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance as absolute defense; definitions.

Sec. 2955a.

    (1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, and as a result of that impaired ability, the individual was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event that resulted in the death or injury. If the individual described in this subsection was less than 50% the cause of the accident or event, an award of damages shall be reduced by that percentage.

    (2) As used in this section:

    (a) "Controlled substance" means that term as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.7104 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    (b) "Impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance" means that, as a result of an individual drinking, ingesting, smoking, or otherwise consuming intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, the individual's senses are impaired to the point that the ability to react is diminished from what it would be had the individual not consumed liquor or a controlled substance. An individual is presumed under this section to have an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance if, under a standard prescribed by section 625a of the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being section 257.625a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, a presumption would arise that the individual's ability to operate a vehicle was impaired.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Harbour v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc, 702 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harbour v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc, 702 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 21× “2 A jury trial commenced, and at the close of plaintiffs proofs, defendant moved for, and the trial court granted, a directed verdict on the ground that MCL 600.2955a precluded recovery because the evidence unequivocally established that the decedent’s intoxication was the…”
Wysocki v. Kivi, 639 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The jury found that Wysocki was fifty percent or more at fault because of intoxication, barring his recovery under MCL 600.2955a. We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties have entered into a stipulated statement of facts for the purposes of this appeal, a…”
Phillips v. Mirac, Inc, 685 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “[14] We note that the Legislature has limited a plaintiff's ability to fully recover his assessed damages in other circumstances, such as where he is more than fifty percent at fault, MCL 600.2955a (constitutionality upheld in Wysocki v.”
Beebe v. Hartman, 290 Mich. App. 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 36× “Plaintiffs Donald and Eva Beebe 1 appeal *514 as of right the trial court’s order granting a motion for dismissal pursuant to MCL 600.2955a by defendants Christina Sheely, D.”
Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins., 762 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “(3) The court shall determine the award of damages to each plaintiff in accordance with the findings under subsection (1), subject to any reduction under subsection (5) or [MCL 600.2955a] or [MCL 600.6303], and shall enter judgment against each party, including a third-party…”
Piccalo v. Nix, 643 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 3× “, states as follows: Because I agree with the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals that it is "not absurd that [MCL 600.2955a(1) ] applies even when the illegal conduct is facilitated by the alleged tortfeasor," I would also vacate the Court of Appeals decision and remand to…”
Piccalo v. Nix, 653 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “] MCL 600.2955a provides, in relevant part: (1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the influence…”
Piccalo v. Nix, 630 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.2955a provides, in relevant part: (1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or *905 for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the…”
Mallison v. Scribner, 709 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “1 Lack and Scribner each filed affirmative defenses of impairment based on MCL 600.2955a(1), which provides that a plaintiff is absolutely barred from recovery if the plaintiff had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor and, as a result of…”
Lisa Kastl v. Greektown Casino LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “Further, because the blood alcohol content established by the toxicology report is presumed to be the same as at the time of the incident, plaintiff is considered an impaired individual under MCL 600.2955a. See MCL 257.625a(6)(a). Additionally, plaintiff herself testified that,…”
Est. of Brady Lane Morton v. Theta Chi Fraternity (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “-4- MCL 600.2955a provides in pertinent part: (1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the…”
Mallison v. Scribner, 715 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 2006). “The Court of Appeals and the Gogebic Circuit Court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that as a result of plaintiff's impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor, she was 50% or more the cause of the accident that resulted in her injuries and that…”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955a(1) — 17 cases
Harbour v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc, 702 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “2 A jury trial commenced, and at the close of plaintiffs proofs, defendant moved for, and the trial court granted, a directed verdict on the ground that MCL 600.2955a precluded recovery because the evidence unequivocally established that the decedent’s intoxication was the…”
Wysocki v. Kivi, 639 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “The jury found that Wysocki was fifty percent or more at fault because of intoxication, barring his recovery under MCL 600.2955a. We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties have entered into a stipulated statement of facts for the purposes of this appeal, a…”
Piccalo v. Nix, 643 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. 2002). “, states as follows: Because I agree with the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals that it is "not absurd that [MCL 600.2955a(1) ] applies even when the illegal conduct is facilitated by the alleged tortfeasor," I would also vacate the Court of Appeals decision and remand to…”
Mallison v. Scribner, 715 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 2006). “The Court of Appeals and the Gogebic Circuit Court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that as a result of plaintiff's impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor, she was 50% or more the cause of the accident that resulted in her injuries and that…”
Mallison v. Scribner, 709 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Lack and Scribner each filed affirmative defenses of impairment based on MCL 600.2955a(1), which provides that a plaintiff is absolutely barred from recovery if the plaintiff had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor and, as a result of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955a(2)(b) — 13 cases
Harbour v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc, 702 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “2 A jury trial commenced, and at the close of plaintiffs proofs, defendant moved for, and the trial court granted, a directed verdict on the ground that MCL 600.2955a precluded recovery because the evidence unequivocally established that the decedent’s intoxication was the…”
Wysocki v. Kivi, 639 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “The jury found that Wysocki was fifty percent or more at fault because of intoxication, barring his recovery under MCL 600.2955a. We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties have entered into a stipulated statement of facts for the purposes of this appeal, a…”
Est. of Brady Lane Morton v. Theta Chi Fraternity (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “-4- MCL 600.2955a provides in pertinent part: (1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the…”
Mallison v. Scribner, 709 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Lack and Scribner each filed affirmative defenses of impairment based on MCL 600.2955a(1), which provides that a plaintiff is absolutely barred from recovery if the plaintiff had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor and, as a result of…”
Joshua Ray Cavins v. Bat Com. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2955a(l) — 4 cases
Beebe v. Hartman, 290 Mich. App. 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Plaintiffs Donald and Eva Beebe 1 appeal *514 as of right the trial court’s order granting a motion for dismissal pursuant to MCL 600.2955a by defendants Christina Sheely, D.”
Wysocki v. Kivi, 639 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “The jury found that Wysocki was fifty percent or more at fault because of intoxication, barring his recovery under MCL 600.2955a. We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties have entered into a stipulated statement of facts for the purposes of this appeal, a…”
Piccalo v. Nix, 653 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “] MCL 600.2955a provides, in relevant part: (1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the influence…”
Mallison v. Scribner, 709 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Lack and Scribner each filed affirmative defenses of impairment based on MCL 600.2955a(1), which provides that a plaintiff is absolutely barred from recovery if the plaintiff had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor and, as a result of…”
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.