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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2956 (2026)

Several and joint liability.

✓ 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


600.2956 Several and joint liability.

Sec. 2956.

    Except as provided in section 6304, in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each defendant for damages is several only and is not joint. However, this section does not abolish an employer's vicarious liability for an act or omission of the employer's employee.

History: Add. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Laurel Woods Apts. v. Roumayah, 734 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Laurel Woods Apts. v. Roumayah, 734 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 28× “Defendants also asserted that Najah Roumayah could not be liable because there was no question of fact regarding whether he caused the fire, and joint and several liability was in violation of MCL 600.2956 and public policy. *219 Defendants also asserted that while the evidence…”
Zahn v. Kroger Co. of Michigan, 764 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 28× “Instead, Cimarron contends that MCL 600.2956 effectively limits the application of express contractual indemnification clauses, because the statute mandates that parties may only be held responsible for their own pro rata share of the negligence.”
Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 18× “Defendants argue that tort reform legislation in 1995, specifically MCL 600.2956, MCL 600.2957, and MCL 600.6304, has abrogated plaintiff's contribution action because, had the underlying tort action proceeded to trial, the jury or judge would have been required to allocate…”
Est. of Peterson v. Brannigan Bros Restaurants & Taverns LLC, 918 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “We hold that the issue has, however, been determined, albeit somewhat less cleanly stated, and that "concert of action" is in fact no longer a viable cause of action in Michigan.”
Velez v. Tuma, 821 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 6× “It has a long-acquired meaning that is well established in our jurisprudence: “[]Where multiple tortfeasors caused a single or indivisible injury, the injured party [may] either sue all tortfeasors jointly or he [may] sue any individual tortfeasor severally, and each individual…”
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 4× “RESPONSE TO THE DISSENT Although the dissent accuses the majority of misinterpreting the statutes at issue, it is obvious from the dissent’s dire attempt to save plaintiff’s claim that it is in fact the dissent that misconstrues the statutory framework governing medical…”
Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins., 762 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 6× “MCL 600.2956 provides: "Except as provided in [MCL 600.”
Est. of Ezekiel D Goodwin v. Nw. Michigan Fair Ass'n, 923 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “These principles of fair-share liability are set *906 forth in the comparative-fault statutes: MCL 600.2956, MCL 600.2957, and MCL 600.6304.”
Ormsby v. Capital Welding, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “However, an injured individual can recover only from a party that can be held legally liable.”
Valcaniant v. Detroit Edison Co., 679 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 600.2956. Here, it is reasonably foreseeable that heavy equipment, such as the raised bed of a dump truck, would contact an overhead electrical line, causing injury.”
Greenwich Ins. v. Hogan, 351 F. Supp. 2d 736 (W.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 6× “See MCL §§ 600.2956, 600.2957 and 600.6304; Smiley v.”
Markley v. Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater, Inc, 660 N.W.2d 344 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Assuming here for the moment that defendants are jointly and severally liable for decedent’s wrongful death and that the common-law rule of setoff is applicable, it is clear that the $300,000 verdict would be reduced by the $220,000 settlement payment made by Community to…”
Show all 60 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.