UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES HALL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 

v. Case No. 4:14-cv-12706 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

 

IKEA PROPERTY, INC., a 

foreign profit corporation, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/

 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

NONPARTY AT FAULT CLAIM [ECF NO. 75] 

 Plaintiff Charles Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit asserting claims of 

premises liability and negligence against Defendant Ikea Property, Inc. 

(“Defendant” or “Ikea”). The matter is currently scheduled for trial on November 

14, 2016. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have filed motions in limine in anticipation 

of trial, which presently remain pending before the Court. In those motions, 

Plaintiff seeks to: 

 Strike Defendant’s Expert Witness, Andrew J. Sievers (ECF No. 74); and 

 Strike Nonparty At Fault Claim (ECF No. 75). 

Defendant’s motions in limine seek to: 

 Exclude Testimony of DeAndre Kinney (ECF No. 76); and 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 87 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1200
2 

 Preclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Wage Loss Claim (ECF No. 77). 

Both parties have filed briefs in response to the opposing party’s motions. (ECF 

Nos. 78-84). The Court now resolves Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Nonparty at 

Fault Claim. (ECF No. 75.) 

I. Factual Background 

 Plaintiff filed this suit against Defendant for an injury he obtained through 

the course of his employment at J.W. Logistics (“JW”). (ECF No. 28, ¶¶ 3, 7.) 

Defendant filed a third-party complaint against JW and Plaintiff later filed an 

amended complaint adding JW as a party. (ECF Nos. 3, 28.) JW filed a motion 

for summary judgment against Plaintiff that was granted by this Court on March 

17, 2016. (ECF No. 65.) In the Opinion and Order, this Court held that “the 

exclusive remedy provision of § 131 of the [Worker’s Disability Compensation 

Act] applies to bar Plaintiff’s claim against [JW].” (Id. at Pg ID 880.) 

 Plaintiff argues that this Court’s prior decision holds that JW cannot be 

considered at fault, and therefore the jury is precluded from allocating fault to JW. 

(ECF No. 75 at Pg ID 917.) Defendant disagrees. Defendant argues that JW can 

be named as a nonparty at fault, even if Plaintiff is unable to recover against JW on 

a tort claim. (ECF No. 82 at Pg ID 1118.) 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 87 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1201
3 

II. Legal Standard 

Michigan Compiled Law § 600.2957(1) provides: 

In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for 

personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of 

each person shall be allocated under this section by the trier of fact 

and, subject to section 6304, in direct proportion to the person's 

percentage of fault. In assessing percentages of fault under this 

subsection, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of each person, 

regardless of whether the person is, or could have been, named as a 

party to the action. 

Therefore, the statute allows a jury to allocate fault to a nonparty. See, e.g., 

Rinke v. Potrzebowski, 657 N.W.2d 169, 171 (Mich.App. 2002). 

 The Michigan Supreme Court has held that “proof of duty is required 

before fault can be apportioned and liability allocated under the comparative 

law statutes.” Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 762 N.W.2d 911, 913 

(Mich. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Michigan 

Court of Appeals has held that “a person can owe a duty to a plaintiff even 

when the plaintiff cannot recover any remedy from that person.” Schmeling 

v. Whitty, No. 292190, 2011 WL 520539, at *2 (Mich.App. Feb. 15, 2011); 

see also Sedgewick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 

F.Supp.3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (holding that an employer subject to the 

exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act 

could be named as nonparty at fault). Factfinders determine the percentage 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 87 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1202
4 

of fault of nonparties only to accurately determine the percentage of fault for 

named parties. See generally 18A. Mich. Civ. Jur. Negligence § 111. 

III. Analysis 

 Plaintiff argues that JW should not be named as a nonparty based on this 

Court’s decision granting JW’s motion for summary judgment. In that decision, 

this Court held that Plaintiff could not recover from JW under the Worker’s 

Disability Compensation Act. (ECF No. 65 at Pg ID 880.) However, this Court 

did not find that JW owed no duty to Plaintiff. Rather, the Court noted that JW 

was Plaintiff’s statutory employer under § 131 of the Worker’s Disability 

Compensation Act. (Id.) Because there were no findings of duty of JW at the 

summary judgment stage, Defendant is not barred from introducing facts related to 

JW’s role in Plaintiff’s injury for the purpose of assessing fault of the Defendant. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Nonparty at Fault Claim 

(ECF No. 75) is DENIED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 2, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 2, 2016, by electronic and/or 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 87 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1203
5 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12706-LVP-SDD Doc # 87 Filed 11/02/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1204