Michigan Supreme Court wraps up final oral argument session of 2009-10 term

A horse owner's liability for injuries caused by a rearing steed is at issue in a case that the Michigan Supreme Court will hear on May 11, as the Court wraps up the final scheduled oral argument session of its 2009-2010 term. In Beattie v Mickalich, the plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to secure his horse properly, and that his alleged negligence led to her injuries. But the defendant - who claims the plaintiff wanted to ride the horse over his objections - invoked the state's Equine Activity Liability Act, which protects "an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person" from liability "for an injury to or the death of a participant or property damage resulting from an inherent risk of an equine activity." The statute does not prohibit a claim if the defendant "[p]rovides an equine and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity," or if the defendant "[c]ommits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage." Although the plaintiff contends that she produced sufficient evidence to support her claim under these two statutory exceptions, both the trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the act barred her claim, with the appellate court stating that the "plaintiff was engaged in inherently risky equine activity." Also before the court is People v Waterstone; at issue is whether the office of the Attorney General can serve as special prosecutor in a case where the defendants include a former judge, who is charged with knowingly allowing perjured testimony to be presented in a criminal case in which she was presiding. The Attorney General's office previously represented the judge when the defendant in that criminal case brought a civil lawsuit against her and others in federal court. The judge argues that the Attorney General has a conflict of interest because of the earlier representation and so is disqualified from prosecuting her. The remaining five cases involve premises liability, procedural, and criminal law issues. All seven cases are being heard as oral arguments on application. The Supreme Court orders oral arguments on application in cases where the Court is deciding whether to grant leave to appeal or take some other action, such as sending the case back to a lower court for further proceedings. In an oral argument on application, the appellant and appellee each get 15 minutes for argument, rather than the 30 minutes per side in cases where the Court has already granted leave. Court will be held on Tuesday, May 11, in the Supreme Court's courtroom on the sixth floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing. Oral arguments will begin at 9:30 a.m. The Court's oral arguments are open to the public. Please note: the summaries that follow are brief accounts of complicated cases and may not reflect the way that some or all of the Court's seven justices view the cases. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, the issues, the procedural history, or the significance of their cases. Briefs in the cases are available online at http://www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/MSC_orals.htm. For further details about the cases, contact the attorneys. Tuesday, May 11 Morning Session Only BEATTIE v MICKALICH (case no. 139438) Attorney for plaintiff Trina Lee Beattie: Otis M. Underwood, Jr. Attorney for defendant Mark P. Mickalich: Richard H. Ebbott. Attorney for amicus curiae Michigan Horse Council: Carol A. Rosati. Attorney for amicus curiae Michigan Association for Justice: Mark R. Bendure. Trial Court: Lapeer County Circuit Court At issue: The plaintiff was holding the halter of the defendant's horse when the horse reared up, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure her shoulder and arm. She sued the defendant, alleging negligence. The defendant moved for summary disposition, claiming immunity under the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq. The trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Does the Equine Activity Liability Act bar the plaintiff's cause of action? Must a plaintiff plead in avoidance of the Equine Activity Liability Act? Was it error to exclude consideration of a letter offering an expert opinion? PEOPLE v KADE (case no. 139540) Prosecuting attorney: Marilyn J. Day. Attorney for defendant Bernard William Kade: Dana B. Carron. Trial Court: Oakland County Circuit Court At issue: The defendant pled guilty to third-degree fleeing and eluding and to driving with a suspended license at his arraignment. He was informed that the maximum sentence for his fleeing and eluding offense was five years in prison. Thereafter, the prosecutor timely filed supplemental information charging the defendant as a third habitual offender. Based on his habitual offender status, the defendant was sentenced to a maximum term of 10 years in prison. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea on the ground that he did not enter the plea knowingly and voluntarily because he was not informed of his maximum possible sentence as required by MCR 6.302(B)(2). Must a defendant be informed of the enhanced maximum sentence before entering a plea to satisfy MCR 6.302(B)(2)? Under the circumstances, did the defendant enter the plea knowingly and voluntarily? PEOPLE v GAYHEART (case no. 139664) Prosecuting attorney: William E. Molner. Attorney for defendant Dannie Gayheart: Dennis M. Powers. Trial Court: St. Joseph County Circuit Court At issue: The defendant and his victim both lived in St. Joseph County, Michigan. The evidence tended to show that the defendant killed the victim in an Indiana cornfield, just over the Michigan-Indiana state line. He was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder. On appeal, he claimed that the Michigan trial court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. The Court of Appeals held that "territorial jurisdiction" existed under MCL 762.2 and that charges could be brought in Michigan. Did the defendant preserve the jurisdictional issue? Did the Court of Appeals correctly resolve this issue? PEOPLE v CAMP (case no. 139984) Prosecuting attorney: Jonathan L. Poer. Attorney for defendant Douglas Eugene Camp: F. Martin Tieber. Attorney for amicus curiae Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan: Joel D. McGormley. Trial Court: Lenawee County Circuit Court At issue: The defendant was charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct involving his nephew, in both Livingston and Lenawee Counties. He was found not guilty of the charges brought to trial in Livingston County. At the Lenawee County trial, a witness referred to the Livingston County case in response to a question from the prosecutor. After conferring with the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial court granted a mistrial. The defendant then moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that constitutional double jeopardy principles precluded him from being tried a second time. He argued that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and that he did not consent to it. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant was eventually convicted of one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's conviction, holding that the retrial did violate the defendant's constitutional rights. Was the Court of Appeals correct in ruling that the defendant did not consent to the mistrial? Was the Court of Appeals correct in ruling that the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity? PEOPLE v SZALMA (case no. 140021) Prosecuting attorney: Joshua D. Abbott. Attorney for defendant George Michael Szalma: Patricia A. Maceroni. Trial Court: Macomb County Circuit Court At issue: The defendant was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct. After hearing the prosecution's case, the trial judge granted a directed verdict of acquittal. The judge concluded that the evidence was not legally sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged crime was committed. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial judge had engaged in improper credibility determinations. Did the Court of Appeals violate the defendant's right against double jeopardy by overturning the trial court's directed verdict of acquittal? JANSON v SAJEWSKI FUNERAL HOME, INC. (case no. 140071) Attorney for plaintiff Thomas Janson: Daryl C. Royal. Attorney for defendant Sajewski Funeral Home, Inc.: Sarah E. Robertson. Trial Court: Wayne County Circuit Court At issue: On a cold day in early March, the plaintiff slipped and fell on an ice patch in the parking lot of the defendant funeral home. He sued the funeral home based on a premises liability theory, but the trial court dismissed his claim, finding that the funeral home was not liable because the danger of an icy parking lot was "open and obvious" under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there were no "visual indicia" to make the plaintiff aware of the hazard. Did the Court of Appeals reach the right result? PEOPLE v WATERSTONE (case no. 140775) Prosecuting attorney: Anica Letica. Attorney for defendant Mary M. Waterstone: Paul C. Smith. Attorney for amicus curiae Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council and Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan: Thomas M. Robertson. Trial Court: Wayne County Circuit Court At issue: The Attorney General, acting as special prosecutor, has filed four felony charges of misconduct in office against retired Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Mary M. Waterstone, based on her actions as the presiding judge in People v Aceval. Earlier, the Attorney General's office represented Waterstone in a civil action in federal court that involved the same facts. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the Attorney General is disqualified from acting as special prosecutor because of a conflict of interest under Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)? Published: Tue, May 11, 2010

––––––––––––––––––––
 Subscribe to the Legal News!
 https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available