TRAVERSE CITY (AP) — A city-owned utility in Traverse City can't be held responsible for the death of a tree trimmer who had contact with a power line.
The Michigan Supreme Court turned down an appeal Wednesday from Zachary Adams' family, which means a Court of Appeals decision in favor of the utility will stand.
Adams was employed by a contractor to trim trees for Traverse City Light and Power when he was killed in 2013. His estate filed a lawsuit with several theories of liability.
The utility is an arm of local government, which is generally immune to tort lawsuits. But the estate claimed that an exception under Michigan law applied, arguing that the utility was in business to make money for Traverse City.
The appeals court acknowledged that revenue in recent years had exceeded expenses but said that's not enough to invoke the exception.
"The primary purpose of defendant's activities is not pecuniary profit. To find otherwise would be to penalize sound and responsible financial decisions by a municipal utility," the appeals court said in 2020.
- Posted June 02, 2021
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Justices reject appeal in tree trimmer's death

headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- This LA lawyer levels up legal protections in the video game industry
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Legal champions to receive Spirit of Excellence Award at 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting
- Fake Sullivan & Cromwell entities used by scammers should be dissolved, suit says
- Hackers gained access to ‘small number’ of attorney emails at Williams & Connolly, firm confirms
- Before joining Anderson Kill, judge was accused of rude behavior on bench, retaliatory threats in ethics case