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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2957 (2026)

Determination and allocation of fault; action against nonparty; amendment of pleading; assessment of fault against nonparty.

✓ 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


600.2957 Determination and allocation of fault; action against nonparty; amendment of pleading; assessment of fault against nonparty.

Sec. 2957.

    (1) In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each person shall be allocated under this section by the trier of fact and, subject to section 6304, in direct proportion to the person's percentage of fault. In assessing percentages of fault under this subsection, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of each person, regardless of whether the person is, or could have been, named as a party to the action.

    (2) Upon motion of a party within 91 days after identification of a nonparty, the court shall grant leave to the moving party to file and serve an amended pleading alleging 1 or more causes of action against that nonparty. A cause of action added under this subsection is not barred by a period of limitation unless the cause of action would have been barred by a period of limitation at the time of the filing of the original action.

    (3) Sections 2956 to 2960 do not eliminate or diminish a defense or immunity that currently exists, except as expressly provided in those sections. Assessments of percentages of fault for nonparties are used only to accurately determine the fault of named parties. If fault is assessed against a nonparty, a finding of fault does not subject the nonparty to liability in that action and shall not be introduced as evidence of liability in another action.

History: Add. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 78× “73 Moreover, we presume the Legislature was aware of the nuance between adding a nonparty at fault under MCL 600.”
Est. of Ezekiel D Goodwin v. Nw. Michigan Fair Ass'n, 923 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “2956, MCL 600.2957, and MCL 600.6304. Vandonkelaar , 290 Mich.”
Barnett v. Hidalgo, 732 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 18× “Regarding the second issue, we hold on the basis of MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304 that the parties were permitted to refer to the involvement of nonparties and, therefore, the jury could have considered the affidavits of merit that referenced a settling defendant.”
Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 29× “The Michigan comparative fault statutes provide that in a tort action for personal injury the liability of each person is allocated by the trier of fact “in direct proportion to the person’s percentage of fault.”
Kaiser v. Allen, 746 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 12× “At issue in this case is whether the 1995 tort-reform amendments of MCL 600.2957(1) and MCL 600.6304(1) abrogate the common-law setoff rule in automobile accident cases in which the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the operator's negligence.”
Bint v. Doe, 732 N.W.2d 156 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “112(K) is a rule of procedure and was promulgated in response to the adoption of MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304. Veltman v Detroit Edison Co, 261 Mich App 685, 694-695 ; 683 NW2d 707 (2004).”
Staff v. Johnson, 619 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “MCL 600.2957; MSA 27A.2957 provides, in relevant part: (2) Upon motion of a party within 91 days after identification of a nonparty, the court shall grant leave to the moving party to file and serve an amended pleading alleging 1 or more causes of action against that nonparty.”
Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat'l Ins., 761 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “We additionally conclude that plaintiff's admitted failure to read the policy could qualify as comparative negligence and that the trial court should have permitted the jury to consider whether plaintiff unreasonably failed to read the 2002-2003 policy, the 2002 application, and…”
Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins., 762 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 10× “Because the Kopp panel did not declare a conflict, Jones is the controlling precedent and proof of a duty is required "before fault can be apportioned and liability allocated" under the comparative fault statutes, MCL 600.2957 [5] and MCL 600.6304. [6] In addition to being the…”
Taylor v. Michigan Petroleum Tech., Inc, 859 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 23× “The Legislature gave effect to this policy change through several statutes, including MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304. Under MCL 600.”
Holton v. A+ Ins. Assocs., Inc, 661 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “n This case presents an issue of first impression concerning the application of comparative fault principles under Michigan’s 1995 tort reform, 2 embodied in MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304, to an injury resulting from alleged negligent procurement of insurance coverage.”
Gerling Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 8× “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 fault among all tortfeasors and each tortfeasor, including plaintiff, would have…”
Show all 128 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2957(1) — 65 cases
Kaiser v. Allen, 746 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2008). “At issue in this case is whether the 1995 tort-reform amendments of MCL 600.2957(1) and MCL 600.6304(1) abrogate the common-law setoff rule in automobile accident cases in which the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the operator's negligence.”
Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat'l Ins., 761 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “We additionally conclude that plaintiff's admitted failure to read the policy could qualify as comparative negligence and that the trial court should have permitted the jury to consider whether plaintiff unreasonably failed to read the 2002-2003 policy, the 2002 application, and…”
Est. of Ezekiel D Goodwin v. Nw. Michigan Fair Ass'n, 923 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2956, MCL 600.2957, and MCL 600.6304. Vandonkelaar , 290 Mich.”
Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “The Michigan comparative fault statutes provide that in a tort action for personal injury the liability of each person is allocated by the trier of fact “in direct proportion to the person’s percentage of fault.”
Fultz v. Union-Com. Assocs., 683 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. 2004).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2957(2) — 24 cases
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). “73 Moreover, we presume the Legislature was aware of the nuance between adding a nonparty at fault under MCL 600.”
Bint v. Doe, 732 N.W.2d 156 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “112(K) is a rule of procedure and was promulgated in response to the adoption of MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304. Veltman v Detroit Edison Co, 261 Mich App 685, 694-695 ; 683 NW2d 707 (2004).”
Taylor v. Michigan Petroleum Tech., Inc, 859 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The Legislature gave effect to this policy change through several statutes, including MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304. Under MCL 600.”
Staff v. Johnson, 619 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 600.2957; MSA 27A.2957 provides, in relevant part: (2) Upon motion of a party within 91 days after identification of a nonparty, the court shall grant leave to the moving party to file and serve an amended pleading alleging 1 or more causes of action against that nonparty.”
Williams v. Arbor Home, Inc, 656 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2957(3) — 10 cases
Est. of Ezekiel D Goodwin v. Nw. Michigan Fair Ass'n, 923 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2956, MCL 600.2957, and MCL 600.6304. Vandonkelaar , 290 Mich.”
Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “The Michigan comparative fault statutes provide that in a tort action for personal injury the liability of each person is allocated by the trier of fact “in direct proportion to the person’s percentage of fault.”
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). “73 Moreover, we presume the Legislature was aware of the nuance between adding a nonparty at fault under MCL 600.”
Smiley v. Corrigan, 638 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
Vandonkelaar v. Kid's Kourt, LLC, 800 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
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.