Statement of Facts
Jerry Newhouse, the plaintiff in this matter, was in defendant’s Lion’s Paint Store shopping for paint. Around 10:30 am, while Jerry was in the third aisle of the store, he slipped & fell on paint that had spilled from an open container. The manager of the Lion’s Paint Store claims that the store was unaware of the spilled paint on the floor. Store policy requires employees to check the aisles at the beginning of each hour. According to Lion’s Paint Store records, an employee inspected the floor at 10:00 am. The last inspection therefore occurred approximately one half-hour before the accident. Jerry suffered substantial injuries from the fall on the wet paint. The medical clinic diagnosed him with a slipped disc in his lower back and a broken wrist. The accident caused him to miss many days of work and will entail undergoing three months of physical therapy to get back on his feet. Jerry is a single father of a young 4-year-old daughter and does not have health insurance.
Jerry filed a negligence action against Lion’s Paint Store, seeking damages for the injuries Jerry sustained. Lion’s Paint Store has subsequently answered the complaint with an affirmative defense. Lion’s Paint Store defends on the ground that Jerry had a duty to avoid the paint spill and is partially responsible for the accident. The store claims that when Jerry slipped and fell in the third aisle, his 4-year-old daughter was distracting him and caused him to fail to notice the wet paint. Thus, through Jerry’s own negligence, he is equally at fault for the accident.
Question Presented
The legal issue in this case is whether the amount of damages awarded to Jerry in a negligence action can be reduced based on Jerry’s comparative negligence or comparative fault.
Brief Answer
Yes, the amount of damages recoverable by Jerry can be reduced based on his own comparative fault.
Applicable Statute
Michigan law provides for a reduction in the amount of damages a plaintiff seeks to recover if the plaintiff is found to be comparatively at fault. Under M.C.L.A. 600.2959, a damages award is to be reduced by the percentage of comparative fault of the plaintiff M.C.L.A. 600.2959, 2013.
Discussion
A jury will determine the precise percentage of comparative fault that led to the accident. For instance, if the Jury finds that Jerry was 50 percent at fault for the accident, his damages will consequently be reduced by this percentage. In assignment a percentage of fault to Jerry, the Jerry will consider the facts and circumstances of the accident. Whether the 4-year-old daughter’s misbehavior in the aisle was a significant distraction and rendered Jerry comparatively at fault for failing to notice the obvious paint spill will need to be carefully taken into consideration.
Conclusion
The court will most likely find Jerry at least partially responsible for the accident under M.C.L.A. 600.2959 and will reduce his damages according to the percentage of fault that a jury or trier of fact assigns.
The Michigan case Hill v. Holg sheds some light on the application of M.C.L.A. 600.2959 comparative fault statute. In Hill, plaintiff witnessed a truck hitting defendant’s dog. Hill v. Holg, 258 Mich.App. 538, 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). The plaintiff saw the dog in the middle of the road and decided to move the dog to safety. Id. While the plaintiff was attempting to move the dog, the dog bit the plaintiff, injuring her. Id. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued the dog’s owner pursuant to a state dog bite law. Id. A jury awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in damages sustained from the dog bite, and the defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiff’s provocation of the dog was a complete defense to recovery of damages. Id.
The defendants took issue with the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that provocation was a complete defense to a dog bite negligence action. Id. at 541. The Court disagreed, pointing out that while the doctrine of contributory negligence serves as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery, comparative fault under M.C.L.A. 600.2959 does not completely bar a plaintiff’s recovery, but simply reduces the damages award by a percentage of the plaintiff’s own comparative fault. Id. While Michigan used to have the doctrine of contributory negligence, which bars any recovery by the plaintiff if there is a showing of any negligence on the plaintiff’s part, the doctrine of comparative fault under M.C.L.A. 600.2959 serves to assign percentages of fault to the plaintiff and defendant and reduces the plaintiff’s recovery according to the plaintiff’s percentage of negligence. Because Michigan replaced contributory negligence with comparative fault, plaintiffs can still recovery damages even if they are found to have acted negligently under the comparative fault statute. Hill, 258 Mich.App at 541.
References
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated 600.3959 (2013).
Hill v. Holg, 258 Mich.App. 538, 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
