Free Legal Help in Michigan

Banks v. Wittenberg, 82 Mich. App. 274, 266 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)

'If a physician treats or operates on a patient without consent, he has committed an assault and battery and may be required to respond in damages. Likewise, if consent has been given but the scope of the consent is exceeded, there has been an assault and battery' (citing Franklyn v. Peabody, 249 Mich. 363 (1930)). The necessary consent may be express or implied, however, and implied consent may be inferred from the patient's own conduct in presenting for and submitting to the treatment — an implied-consent jury instruction was proper on those facts and the defense verdict was affirmed.

Cited on: Surgery That Exceeded the Scope of the Patient's Consent

Hill v. Sacka, 256 Mich. App. 443, 666 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003)

Under MCL 287.351 liability is absolute absent provocation, and provocation is the only defense. Michigan's comparative-fault statutes (MCL 600.2957 and 600.6304) do not apply to a dog-bite statutory claim, so the negligence of the victim or of a third party (there, the injured child's father, found 75% negligent) cannot reduce the award — fault matters only insofar as it bears on provocation. The court expressly noted that a child CAN provoke a dog and that whether provocation requires an intentional act or whether negligent/unintentional conduct suffices is UNSETTLED in Michigan, declining to resolve it.

Cited on: Defending a Michigan Dog-Scratch Lawsuit Involving a Neighbor's Child

Koivisto v. Davis, 277 Mich. App. 492, 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)

MCL 287.351 creates 'an almost absolute liability' in the dog owner except where the dog was provoked. 'Provocation' does not turn on the actor's intent but on the nature of the act and its relationship to the outcome, so an unintentional act can provoke (quoting Brans v. Extrom, 266 Mich. App. 216). But the defense presupposes that the dog was not ALREADY in a provoked state: a victim's response to a dog that is already behaving viciously or is already attacking cannot be provocation as a matter of law. Whether provocation existed is otherwise typically a jury question decided on the circumstances of each case.

Cited on: Defending a Michigan Dog-Scratch Lawsuit Involving a Neighbor's Child

Terry McDowell Individually and in His Capacity as of the Last Will of Sharon Sidovar v. John Raymond Krawchison Winton Road Chiropractic Center, Inc., 125 F.3d 954 (1997) — Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

If the administrator fails to provide that notice [of triggering of COBRA rights] to the qualified beneficiary, it may be bound to provide coverage to her.

Cited on: COBRA Coverage Cancelled Without Proper Notice