McAtee v. Guthrie

Citations: 451 N.W.2d 551; 182 Mich. App. 215Docket: Docket 106696, 109394, 113204

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; November 15, 1989; Michigan; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A jury awarded plaintiff Jill McAtee $27,000 against defendants Bruce Guthrie and Oakland Hills Country Club in a case stemming from an incident on August 8, 1984. Guthrie, after attending a golf outing where he consumed alcohol, drove a motor home while intoxicated. Following a report from a service station manager about Guthrie's erratic behavior, McAtee, a Bloomfield Township patrol officer, stopped him. Guthrie was uncooperative, leading to a struggle during which McAtee sustained injuries, specifically to her nose. She later claimed these injuries were due to Guthrie's reckless conduct. 

McAtee initially filed suit against Guthrie and subsequently added Oakland Hills under the dramshop act. The trial court denied Guthrie's motions for summary disposition and directed verdict based on the 'fireman's rule,' which were also contested on appeal. The trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Oakland Hills post-trial, leading to McAtee's appeal regarding this judgment and the denial of mediation sanctions. Both parties, along with Oakland Hills, cross-appealed, challenging various trial-related rulings.

Two premises liability actions were brought by safety officers against property owners after injuries sustained during their duties. The Kreski Court established that public policy prevents firefighters and police officers from recovering damages for injuries incurred due to negligence that necessitated their presence on the premises, encompassing the inherent risks of their profession. However, the Court acknowledged that exceptions exist, particularly in cases of willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct, referencing a case where a police officer successfully sued a gunman for intentional harm. In the current case, evidence indicated that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by Guthrie's willful misconduct during an arrest attempt, therefore negating Guthrie's protection under the fireman's rule.

The court also addressed a claim regarding the trial court's judgment in favor of Oakland Hills under the dramshop act, which requires proof that intoxicating liquor was served to Guthrie. The trial court ruled there was insufficient evidence to support this claim. While agreeing that a statement made by Guthrie to Officer Price about drinking at Oakland Hills was inadmissible, the court found that there was a basis for reasonable jurors to disagree about whether sufficient evidence existed regarding the serving of alcohol to Guthrie.

Competent evidence was presented that warranted a jury's determination on the issue of service, specifically regarding whether Guthrie was served an alcoholic drink at Oakland Hills. Testimonies indicated that seven alcoholic and three nonalcoholic beverages were served to Guthrie's group, and although Guthrie initially denied consuming alcohol, he later acknowledged the possibility. Bruce Tepaske corroborated this uncertainty, suggesting that Guthrie may have had an alcoholic drink. The evidence, along with Guthrie's post-visit behavior, supported a reasonable jury's conclusion that he was served alcohol.

The trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Oakland Hills was reversed, and the case was remanded for judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff's request for a new trial was denied due to the untimeliness of her objection regarding the admission of photographs taken before her surgery, which were deemed irrelevant and immaterial only after the jury began deliberations. The court ruled that objections must be timely to affect a substantial right.

Regarding the jury's verdict of $27,000, which the plaintiff argued was grossly inadequate compared to her claimed $16,000 in medical expenses and lost earnings, the court determined no error occurred. The jury's award exceeded the plaintiff's tangible damages, distinguishing it from cases where juries ignored pain and suffering.

The plaintiff's claim that she was denied a fair trial due to closing argument comments from Guthrie's attorney was dismissed, as no objection was raised during the trial, and the comments did not impair her right to a fair trial.

Both parties contested the trial court's denial of mediation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O). Given the circumstances of the mediation and the jury's verdict being more favorable to the plaintiff than the mediation evaluation against Oakland Hills, the court ruled that Oakland Hills was not entitled to costs. The trial court's denial of plaintiff's mediation sanctions was also reversed, leading to a remand for the determination of her entitlement to those sanctions following the reversal of the judgment. The decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.