REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2959 Comparative fault; reduced damages.
Sec. 2959.
In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the court shall reduce the damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable. If that person's percentage of fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the other person or persons, whether or not parties to the action, the court shall reduce economic damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable, and noneconomic damages shall not be awarded.
History: Add. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 608, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 608 of 2012 provides:
"Enacting section 1. Sections 1483, 2959, 6306, and 6307 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.1483, 600.2959, 600.6306, and 600.6307, as amended by this amendatory act and section 6306a of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.6306a, as added by this amendatory act apply only to actions in which the cause of action arose on or after the effective date of this amendatory act."
Notes of Decisions
Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp, 471 Mich. 540 (Mich. 2004).
· cites it 11× “Subsection 6304(1)(b) is unambiguous and calls for the trier of fact to assess by percentage “the total fault of 3 See, also, MCL 600.2959, which provides: In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death,…”
Lamp v. Reynolds, 645 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Defendants finally argue that the trial court erred in failing to reduce plaintiffs’ damages award by twenty-five percent, the degree of comparative fault attributed to plaintiff.”
Susan Blackwell v. Dean Franchi, 914 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 4× “It was codified in its present form in 1995 in MCL 600.2959. The Legislature, by requiring that a plaintiff’s recovery be reduced by the percentage of her own negligence, mandated that a plaintiff’s negligence could not be used as a basis to dismiss a suit altogether.”
Laier v. Kitchen, 702 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “MCL 600.2959; Placek v. Sterling Hts., 405 Mich.”
Alfieri v. Bertorelli, 813 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “01, because their negligent-misrepresentation claim does not involve a claim seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death as set out in MCL 600.2959. We review de novo claims of instructional error.”
Taylor v. Kent Radiology, PC, 780 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2957(1); see also MCL 600.2959; MCL 600.6304. For that reason, the *516 allocation of fault is necessarily limited to fault for the injury for which the plaintiff seeks damages.”
Redmond v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 3d 606 (E.D. Mich. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The government has not submitted evidence sufficient to show without dispute that the decedent was more than 50 percent at fault for his untimely death, and it certainly has not shown that the record is so one-sided on this point that the Court must rénder judgment as a matter…”
Velez v. Tuma, 821 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. 2012).
“Subject to [MCL 600.2959], the order of judgment shall be entered against each defendant, including a third-party defendant, in the following order and in the following judgment amounts: (a) All past economic damages, less collateral source payments as provided for in [MCL 600.”
Hill v. Hoig, 672 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 600.2959; see also Placek v. Sterling Hts.”
Renee Pinsky v. Kroger Co of Michigan (Mich. 2023).
· cites it 4× “2957 through MCL 600.2959. While the caselaw that followed continued to muddy the waters between which components of the open and obvious danger doctrine pertained to duty and which to breach, the statutory scheme made clear that determinations of comparative fault were to be…”
Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil Inc (Mich. 2023).
· cites it 4× “2957 through MCL 600.2959. While the caselaw that followed continued to muddy the waters between which components of the open and obvious danger doctrine pertained to duty and which to breach, the statutory scheme made clear that determinations of comparative fault were to be…”
Renee Pinsky v. Kroger Co of Michigan (Mich. 2023).
· cites it 4× “2957 through MCL 600.2959. While the caselaw that followed continued to muddy the waters between which components of the open and obvious danger doctrine pertained to duty and which to breach, the statutory scheme made clear that determinations of comparative fault were to be…”
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.