Insights

10 '14

Recently, in Sholberg v Truman, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the notion that the title owner of real property isn’t always the same as one who is in “possession and control” for purposes of a public nuisance claim. Much like in cases of premises liability, if another party is exercising control over the property and…

09 '14

The case-within-a-case doctrine spells the end for a plaintiff’s legal malpractice lawsuit

September 23, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Legal malpractice lawsuits in Michigan are subject to the case-within-a-case doctrine. This rule applies when a plaintiff alleges that she was unable to pursue an underlying claim because of an attorney’s malpractice. It holds that a plaintiff can recover in malpractice only if she can prove that the underlying claim would have been successful. In…

09 '14

The Michigan Court of Appeals applies two well-established rules to reject an apartment tenant’s negligence claims

September 11, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Lawyers use the terms “black-letter law” and “hornbook law” to refer to legal principles that have become well-established over the years. These principles often begin life as a holding in a single case, and are then reapplied and refined in subsequent cases. Eventually, they are so entrenched that they can be taught as actual rules…

09 '14

Joint enterprise theory of liability not viable where each attorney does not have an equal right to control the client’s legal representation and joint responsibility for decision-making

September 9, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Originally printed in Michigan Defense Quarterly, July 2014 edition. Souden v Attorney Defendant, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 17, 2014 (Docket No. 314143) The Facts: Plaintiff sued to divorce his wife in Berrien County. Plaintiff retained the attorney defendant and, against the attorney defendant’s advice, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his…

09 '14

Notices of Intent and the 182-Day Waiting Period

September 5, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Originally printed in Michigan Defense Quarterly, July 2014 edition. An application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision in Furr v McLeod is currently pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. This opinion was issued by a special panel of the Court of Appeals convened after the court declared a conflict with Tyra v…

03 '14

Michigan Court of Appeals rejects slip-and-fall claim based on speculative theory

March 7, 2014

Hiro Adachi

The open and obvious doctrine is straightforward: plaintiffs cannot recover for injuries from hazards that a reasonable person could have seen, unless those hazards were unavoidable or especially dangerous. This logic undermines most slip-and-fall claims based on snow and ice. As the Michigan Supreme Court put it (perhaps somewhat sarcastically) inHoffner v. Lanctoe, “Michigan, being…

02 '14

Court of Appeals holds that property owner with unique knowledge of brickwork and home repairs had constructive knowledge of defect in brick steps.

February 27, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Notice is a common issue in premises liability litigation. If someone is injured on another’s property, the owner is not liable for the injury unless he had notice—whether actual or constructive—of the defect that caused the injury. In Grandberry-Lovette v Garascia, __ Mich App __ (Jan. 2, 2014) (Docket No. 311668), the Court of Appeals…

02 '14

Michigan’s Recreational Safety Acts

February 26, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Michigan has a number of so-called “safety” acts that govern recreational activities. They typically define the activity, identify the risks inherent in it, and require proprietors to provide certain warnings. Then they give proprietors some level of protection. That last proposition isn’t as clear as you’d think, given the furor these enactments provoke. The idea…

01 '14

Brian Einhorn on judicial reform

January 8, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Collins Einhorn founding member and current president of the State Bar of Michigan Brian D. Einhorn devotes this month’s President’s Page to the subject of judicial reform in Michigan. The full article is available through the Michigan Bar Journal.

01 '14

The Court of Appeals holds that a defendant without possession and control of a parking lot is not liable for injuries caused by a pothole

January 8, 2014

Hiro Adachi

When it comes to premises liability, Michigan parking lot owners are often well-protected by case law. In Isaac v. Standard Parking Corporation (December 12, 2013)¸ the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the liability of those who are hired to manage those lots. On December 12, 2003, the Isaacs were flying out of Bishop International Airport…

Category