Atkins v. Suburban Metropolitan Transportation Authority (SMART), ___ Mich. ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (released August 20, 2012)
Aug 20, 2012
OUTCOME: Supreme Court Reversed Court of Appeals
Mr. Tucker represented SMART in this case, after the Court of Appeals issued an opinion against SMART allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a common-law tort claim against the transportation authority... despite having failed to provide statutory notice to SMART as required by statute. Several other cases were pending on applications in the Supreme Court or had been passed over addressing the exact issue present in this case. Mr. Tucker filed an Application for Leave to Appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court in January of 2010. The Court granted oral argument on the application on June 22, 2011. After briefing the case and arguing it before the Court in March of 2012, the Court issued a full published opinion reversing the Court of Appeals in SMART’s favor and holding that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 60-day statutory notice provision barred her tort claims. This case finally resolves a long-standing legal issue and will have major positive impacts on the economic security and future litigation costs of public transportation authorities.
Appeals
Gentry v. Carmona, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, dated October 11, 2011 (Docket No. 296580)
Oct 11, 2011
OUTCOME: Court of Appeals reversed
Mr. Tucker defended a Wayne County Deputy Sheriff against claims of unreasonable use of "deadly force" and "excessive force" arising from Deputy Carmona's act of shooting plaintiff, who fought with fou...r deputies trying to arrest him. The trial court denied Deputy Carmona's motion for summary disposition. Applying the standard established by Odom v. Wayne County (the Supreme Court decision that Mr. Tucker briefed and argued), Mr. Tucker asserted that Deputy Carmona acted in "good faith" when he exercised his discretion to shoot plaintiff after Deputy Carmona's partner shouted that plaintiff had wrested control over his firearm. The Court of Appeals panel (Murphy, Talbot and Fitzgerald) agreed and reversed the trial court's decision. The Court pointed out that the "good faith" standard developed and clarified in Odom was "subjective" in nature and designed to protect a law enforcement officer's "honest belief and good-faith conduct with the cloak of immunity". The Court concluded that the record demonstrated that events faced by Deputy Carmona were rapidly transpiring and his split-second decision to draw his weapon and fire, weighing the potential risks of discharging his firearm against the possibility of harm to his partner, the other officers and himself if plaintiff gained control of the weapon was performed in good faith and he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Appeals
Hamed v. Wayne County et al.
Jul 29, 2011
OUTCOME: Supreme Court Reversed Court of Appeals
In Hamed v Wayne County, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (July 29, 2011), I represented Wayne County and the Wayne County Sheriff in a lawsuit filed by a detainee in the Wayne County Jail who alleged quid p...ro quo claim sexual harassment after she was raped by a correctional officer employed in the jail. The County fired the correctional officer and he was prosecuted for criminal sexual conduct.
The trial court ruled in favor of the county defendants and plaintiff appealed. I was asked by Wayne County to file an appeal and a cross appeal to address certain rulings made by the trial court. In July of 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision ruling that under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act an employer could be held strictly liable for the unforeseeable, criminal acts of its employee. Relying on the 1996 Michigan Supreme Court decision in Champion v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 450 Mich. 702; 545 NW2d 220 (2006), which held that employers could be held strictly liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment claims arising out of such circumstances. I filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which was granted in June of 2010. My initial position in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court was that over 150 years of common-law jurisprudence in Michigan provided that employers could be held liable for the intentional, tortious conduct committed by employees acting outside the scope of their employment. The Michigan Constitution preserves the common law until and unless it is explicitly abrogated by statute or a subsequent judicial ruling. Mich. Const. Art. 3, § 7. Nothing in the Civil Rights Act explicitly abrogated this common-law rule. As a result, I argued that Wayne County and the Wayne County Sheriff could not be liable to the plaintiff for the unforeseeable, intentional acts of the jail officer. After presenting oral argument, the Supreme Court (in a 4-3 decision) agreed with me and reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court reaffirmed the common-law rule, reasoned that nothing in the Civil Rights Act had abrogated this rule, and ruled that the trial court had correctly entered judgment in the county’s favor. The Court explicitly overruled the Champion decision, holding that claimants could not circumvent the common-law rule by artfully pleading sexual harassment claims under the Civil Rights Act when what they were truly attempting to plead was respondeat superior liability against business and employers for the unforeseeable, intentional acts of employees, which acts were outside the scope of employment. In addition to saving millions of dollars in liability for Wayne County, this case will have a positive future impact for private and public employers throughout the state of Michigan by significantly reducing litigation costs and enabling employers to better assess potential risks and liabilities.
Appeals
Jackson v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)
May 11, 2010
OUTCOME: Court of Appeals Affirmed Trial Court's Judgment
I represented SMART in an appeal of a trial court's decision granting SMART's motion for summary disposition due to plaintiff's failure to provide written service of notice of a tort claim against SMAR...T within 60 days as required by MCL 124.419. On the heels of the Nuculovic decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Appeals
Molnar v. Amy Allen, Oakland County Care House, et al.
Dec 29, 2009
OUTCOME: The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment.
In defending a suit against a social welfare organization and its employee alleging federal civil rights causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985, Mr. Tucker briefed and argued before the Six...th Circuit Court of Appeals defending an appeal from a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting the social welfare organization’s motion for summary judgment. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the social welfare organization, agreeing with Mr. Tucker that the plaintiff had failed to provide documentary evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment and had improperly attempted to expand the record for appellate review.
Appeals
Gilmore v. Spectrum Human Services, Inc.
Nov 17, 2009
OUTCOME: The Court of Appeals reversed.
In this lawsuit to recover property damages brought by plaintiff, the owner of a home leased by defendant, Spectrum Human Services (Spectrum), Mr. Tucker filed an application for leave to appeal an int...erlocutory order denying Spectrum’s motion for summary disposition. Mr. Tucker convinced the Court of Appeals to grant leave to address whether the lease agreement between the plaintiff and Spectrum covered the issue of liability and responsibility for damage to plaintiff’s property by fire precluding plaintiff’s tort claims against Spectrum. After hearing oral argument on the case, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Spectrum.
Appeals
Odom v. Wayne County et al.
Dec 30, 2008
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Tucker represented a deputy sheriff and Wayne County in a suit by an individual claiming malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The client received an unfavorable verdict in the Court of App...eals, which affirmed the lower court’s denial of the deputy’s claim of governmental immunity. With only two weeks to do so, Mr. Tucker filed an application and brief in support for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court initially denied the application, with three justices agreeing that the Court should hear the case. Realizing the import of the issues and the close vote at the application stage, Mr. Tucker filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court granted, a rare event. The Court asked the parties to address the issue of individual immunity from intentional torts for all governmental employees in the state of Michigan, an issue that had been in disarray for over 20 years. After Mr. Tucker fully briefed the issues and presented oral argument on the case, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals, agreeing with Mr. Tucker that the wrong legal standards had been applied by the Court of Appeals. The Court enunciated the proper standard to be applied when lower courts address liability issues of individual governmental employees accused of intentional torts. This case has had major jurisprudential significance on governmental entities and their individual employees, and the cost of future litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of this opinion.
Appeals
McCarthy v. Amy Allen , Oakland County Care House, et al.
Oct 14, 2008
OUTCOME: The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed.
In defending an appeal from a trial court’s decision granting summary disposition in a case filed against a social welfare organization and its employee alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process..., false imprisonment, defamation, gross negligence, bad faith, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, obstruction of justice, libel, slander and fraud, Mr. Tucker secured summary affirmance for these defendants. This is a rare occurrence which requires unanimity in the Court of Appeals panel deciding such a motion. As a result, Mr. Tucker saved the client considerable expenses defending a lawsuit that continued on for many months against other defendants that Mr. Tucker did not represent.
Appeals
Michigan Department of Transportation v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. et al.
May 16, 2008
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court summarily reversed.
After a catastrophic accident involving a motor carrier hauling gasoline caused significant property damage to a state highway system, the state of Michigan brought claims against an insurance company ...and the owner of the truck seeking over $3 million in property damages. The issue, one of first impression, was whether a federally mandated coverage endorsement required for transporters of hazardous substances allowed for the state of Michigan to sue the insurance company and the trucking company for damages above the statutorily capped $1 million available for property damage claims under Michigan’s No-Fault Automobile Insurance law. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, ruled against the insurance company and the trucking company holding that the federal endorsement created a private right of action and implicitly amended Michigan’s No-Fault law, which allowed the state of Michigan to sue the insurance company and the trucking company to recover damages above the statutorily capped $1 million. After the Supreme Court granted oral argument on an application for leave to appeal, Mr. Tucker was asked to brief the issues and present the oral argument on the application. On May 7, 2008, Mr. Tucker presented oral arguments to the Court and on May 16, 2008, the Court issued a peremptory order reversing the Court of Appeals in favor of the insurance company and the trucking company.
Appeals
Sherrill v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), et al
Feb 28, 2008
OUTCOME: The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment.
The plaintiff was a passenger who fell while disembarking from a bus owned by SMART. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SMART, finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish sufficient e...vidence to prove that the bus driver was negligent. Mr. Tucker defended an appeal of the trial court’s decision and briefed the issues in reply to plaintiff’s appeal. The Court of Appeals, without oral argument, issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment in favor of SMART.
