Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805 (2026)

Injuries to persons or property; period of limitations; "adjudication," "criminal sexual conduct," and "dating relationship" defined.

✓ 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

600.5805 Injuries to persons or property; period of limitations; "adjudication," "criminal sexual conduct," and "dating relationship" defined.

Sec. 5805.

(1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all actions to recover damages for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging assault, battery, or false imprisonment.

(4) Subject to subsection (6), the period of limitations is 5 years for an action charging assault or battery brought by a person who has been assaulted or battered by his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a person with whom he or she resides or formerly resided.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), the period of limitations is 5 years for an action charging assault and battery brought by a person who has been assaulted or battered by an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship.

(6) The period of limitations is 10 years for an action to recover damages sustained because of criminal sexual conduct. For purposes of this subsection, it is not necessary that a criminal prosecution or other proceeding have been brought as a result of the conduct or, if a criminal prosecution or other proceeding was brought, that the prosecution or proceeding resulted in a conviction or adjudication.

(7) The period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malicious prosecution.

(8) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice.

(9) The period of limitations is 2 years for an action against a sheriff charging misconduct or neglect of office by the sheriff or the sheriff's deputies.

(10) The period of limitations is 2 years after the expiration of the year for which a constable was elected for actions based on the constable's negligence or misconduct as constable.

(11) The period of limitations is 1 year for an action charging libel or slander.

(12) The period of limitations is 3 years for a products liability action. However, in for a product that has been in use for not less than 10 years, the plaintiff, in proving a prima facie case, must do so without the benefit of any presumption.

(13) An action against a state licensed architect or professional engineer or licensed professional surveyor arising from professional services rendered is an action charging malpractice subject to the period of limitation contained in subsection (8).

(14) The periods of limitation under this section are subject to any applicable period of repose established in section 5838a, 5838b, or 5839.

(15) The amendments to this section made by 2011 PA 162 apply to causes of action that accrue on or after January 1, 2012.

(16) As used in this section:

(a) "Adjudication" means an adjudication of 1 or more offenses under chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.1 to 712A.32.

(b) "Criminal sexual conduct" means conduct prohibited under section 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520b, 750.520c, 750.520d, 750.520e, and 750.520g.

(c) "Dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. Dating relationship does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 495, Eff. Dec. 13, 1978 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 115, Imd. Eff. May 2, 1988 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 2, Imd. Eff. Feb. 17, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 3, Imd. Eff. Feb. 17, 2000 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 715, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 162, Eff. Jan. 1, 2012 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 582, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2013 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 183, Imd. Eff. June 12, 2018

Compiler's Notes:

Section 3 of Act 178 of 1986 provides:

“(1) Sections 2925b, 5805, 5838, and 5851 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to causes of action arising before October 1, 1986.

“(2) Sections 1483, 5838a, and 6304 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1986.

“(3) Sections 1629, 1653, 2169, 2591, 2912c, 2912d, 2912e, 6098, 6301, 6303, 6305, 6306, 6307, 6309, and 6311 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after October 1, 1986.

“(4) Sections 1651 and 6013 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to cases filed before October 1, 1986.

“(5) Chapter 49 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 1987.

“(6) Chapter 49a of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of more than 1 county on or after July 1, 1990 and shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of 1 county on or after October 1, 1988.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,389 cases (369 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 48× “5827 and the three-year limitations period for wrongful death actions under MCL 600.5805 have existed in their current forms 21 since 1961 and 1978, respectively.”

Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, LLC, 709 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 68× “*592 We granted defendant's application for leave to appeal and directed that the parties include among the issues to be briefed (1) whether MCL 600.”

Sam v. Balardo, 308 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 60× “MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805 provided in pertinent part: *415 "No person may bring or maintain any action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action within…”

Garg v. MacOmb Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 696 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 24× “§ 600.5805, and M.C.L. § 600.5827. Fundamental canons of statutory interpretation require us to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed by the language of its statutes.”

Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 769 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “Specifically, MCL 600.5805 states: (1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the…”

Major v. Vill. of Newberry, 892 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “The court reasoned that plaintiff failed to file her claim within the stated 90-day period after her complaint was investigated by the MDCR and that the three-year period of limitations related to injuries to persons or property, MCL 600.5805, was inapplicable. The trial court…”

Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 16× “MCL 600.5805(6). Presuming the notice of intent was sufficient, the running of the period of limitations would have been tolled for 182 days from the date of the notice.”

Joliet v. Pitoniak, 715 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 18× “Therefore, plaintiff's November 30, 2001, complaint was not timely filed under the applicable three-year statute of limitations, MCL 600.5805. [2] Accordingly, we hold that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in denying defendants' motion for summary disposition.”

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 10× “§ 600.5805(5), [4] or the additional period allowed for wrongful death actions under § 5852.”

Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 8× “§ 600.5805(10); Stephens v. Dixon, 449 Mich.”

Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc., 802 N.W.2d 33 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 17× “This case also involves the interpretation and application of MCL 600.5805. The issue presents a question of law that we review de novo.”

Walters v. Nadell, 751 N.W.2d 431 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 6× “[26] MCL 600.5805(1) (emphasis added). [27] See Moden v.”

Show all 1,389 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(1) — 96 cases

Garg v. MacOmb Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 696 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2005). “§ 600.5805, and M.C.L. § 600.5827. Fundamental canons of statutory interpretation require us to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed by the language of its statutes.”

Walters v. Nadell, 751 N.W.2d 431 (Mich. 2008). “[26] MCL 600.5805(1) (emphasis added). [27] See Moden v.”

Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015).

Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009).

Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 769 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Specifically, MCL 600.5805 states: (1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(1)(9) — 1 case

Zink v. GMRI, Inc., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10) — 136 cases

Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2007). “5827 and the three-year limitations period for wrongful death actions under MCL 600.5805 have existed in their current forms 21 since 1961 and 1978, respectively.”

Major v. Vill. of Newberry, 892 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “The court reasoned that plaintiff failed to file her claim within the stated 90-day period after her complaint was investigated by the MDCR and that the three-year period of limitations related to injuries to persons or property, MCL 600.5805, was inapplicable. The trial court…”

Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, LLC, 709 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. 2006). “*592 We granted defendant's application for leave to appeal and directed that the parties include among the issues to be briefed (1) whether MCL 600.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(11) — 7 cases

Owen R Schroeder v. Cnty. of Muskegon Dhs (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Carnegie Woods Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Brad Czajka (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Zdravkovski v. Redford, Charter Twp. of (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Carlos Ledezma Md v. McLaren Bay Region (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Michael Haygood v. Gen. Motors LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(12) — 5 cases

Klein, by her Pers. Rep., Brent Klein v. Caterpillar Inc (E.D. Mich. 2023).

McMan v. C R Bard Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2021).

Klein, by her Pers. Rep., Brent Klein v. Caterpillar Inc (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Patricia Wendel v. Ford Motor Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

P Patricia Wendel v. Ford Motor Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(13) — 4 cases

Crossing at Eagle Pond, LLC v. Lubrizol Corp., 346 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (E.D. Mich. 2018).

Konstantinov v. Findlay Ford Lincoln Mercury, 619 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D. Mich. 2008).

Preyde One LLC v. Glasers Lumber (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Doe v. Jayark Corp., 84 F. Supp. 3d 609 (E.D. Mich. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(14) — 11 cases

Citizens Ins. v. Scholz, 709 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, LLC, 859 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc., 802 N.W.2d 33 (Mich. 2011). “This case also involves the interpretation and application of MCL 600.5805. The issue presents a question of law that we review de novo.”

Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr., Inc., 777 N.W.2d 437 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(15) — 2 cases

Steven Hinderer v. Marcus Snyder (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Est. of Loren Alex Gallivan v. Dbmj Rehab. Servs. Pllc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(1M6) — 1 case

Stringer v. Bd. of Trs. of Edward W. Sparrow Hosp., 233 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2) — 87 cases

Lemmerman v. Fealk, 534 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. 1995).

Doe v. Racette, 880 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Walter A. Kurz & Delores J. Kurz v. The State of Michigan, 548 F.2d 172 (6th Cir. 1977).

Lowery v. Dep't of Corr., 380 N.W.2d 99 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Calladine v. Dana Corp., 679 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. Mich. 1988).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2H6) — 1 case

Daniel Browning, D/B/A Daniel Browning Excavating Co. Linda Browning v. Craig R. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1989).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(3) — 38 cases

Sam v. Balardo, 308 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1981). “MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805 provided in pertinent part: *415 "No person may bring or maintain any action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action within…”

Weiss v. Bigman, 270 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Chase v. Sabin, 516 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. 1994).

Kelleher v. Mills, 245 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Dyke v. Richard, 213 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. 1973).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(4) — 105 cases

Local 1064, Rwdsu Afl-cio v. Ernst & Young, 535 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. 1995).

Nielsen v. Barnett, 485 N.W.2d 666 (Mich. 1992).

Levy v. Martin, 620 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. 2001).

Brownell v. Garber, 503 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Gebhardt v. O'ROURKE, 510 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. 1994).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(5) — 23 cases

Waltz v. Wyse, 677 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.5805(5), [4] or the additional period allowed for wrongful death actions under § 5852.”

Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 663 (Mich. 2002).

Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 751 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2008).

Ousley v. McLaren, 691 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).

Levy v. Martin, 620 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. 2001).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(6) — 137 cases

Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). “MCL 600.5805(6). Presuming the notice of intent was sufficient, the running of the period of limitations would have been tolled for 182 days from the date of the notice.”

Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc, 684 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.5805(10); Stephens v. Dixon, 449 Mich.”

Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011).

Burton v. Reed City Hosp. Corp., 691 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. 2005).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(7) — 116 cases

Citizens for Pre-Trial Just. v. Goldfarb, 278 N.W.2d 653 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Glowacki v. Motor Wheel Corp., 241 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Huron Valley Nat'l Bank, 271 N.W.2d 218 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Bonney v. the Upjohn Co., 342 N.W.2d 551 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(8) — 238 cases

Traver Lakes Cmty. Maint. Ass'n v. Douglas Co., 568 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Mfrs. Bank of Southfield, NA, 338 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc., 918 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 2017).

Daniel Browning, D/B/A Daniel Browning Excavating Co. Linda Browning v. Craig R. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1989).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(9) — 53 cases

DiPonio Constr. Co. v. Rosati Masonry Co., 631 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Joliet v. Pitoniak, 715 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. 2006). “Therefore, plaintiff's November 30, 2001, complaint was not timely filed under the applicable three-year statute of limitations, MCL 600.5805. [2] Accordingly, we hold that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in denying defendants' motion for summary disposition.”

Moll v. Abbott Labs., 506 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. 1993).

Rory v. Cont'l Ins., 703 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2005).

Bonney v. the Upjohn Co., 342 N.W.2d 551 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(l) — 3 cases

Hayden v. Green, 420 N.W.2d 201 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Hart v. City of Detroit, 296 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Melburn K Carpenter v. Cedar Springs Mobile Home estates/slp Sales (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

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.