Case Name: HUHN v. DMI, INC (ON REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1996-01-12
Citations: 215 Mich. App. 17
Docket Number: Docket No. 190258
Parties: HUHN v DMI, INC (ON REMAND)
Judges: Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Holbrook, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 215
Pages: 17–19

Head Matter:
HUHN v DMI, INC (ON REMAND)
Docket No. 190258.
Submitted November 9, 1995, at Lansing.
Decided January 12, 1996, at 9:05 a.m.
Leave to appeal sought.
Larry R. Huhn, as personal representative of the estate of Jaime L. Huhn, brought an action in the Ingham Circuit Court against DMI, Inc., and Dan Lenneman, seeking damages under the wrongful death act. Jaime was injured in an accident on a farm in Ionia County and was taken to hospitals in Ingham County, where she died the following day. Dmi answered and asserted improper venue as an affirmative defense. The trial court, Michael G. Harrison, J., granted dmi’s motion for a change of venue to Ionia County. The plaintiff appealed by leave granted. The Court of Appeals, Murphy, P.J., and Hood and P. Edwards, JJ., reversed the decision of the trial court. 207 Mich App 313 (1994). Dmi sought leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Gross v General Motors Corp, 448 Mich 147 (1995). 450 Mich 902 (1995).
On remand, the Court of Appeals held:
A trial court’s decision concerning a motion for a change of venue is reviewed to determine whether it is clearly erroneous. Venue under the general venue statute is proper only at the situs of the injury or in the place or places where a breach of a legal duty occurs that causes the damages. The plaintiff’s wrongful death action is controlled by the provisions of the general venue statute. Accordingly, because the plaintiff’s decedent was injured in Ionia County, the trial court did not err in granting the motion to change venue from Ingham County to Ionia County.
Order granting change of venue affirmed.
Venue — Wrongful Death — Change of Venue.
The wrongful death statute contains no specific venue provision, and, therefore, venue in a wrongful death action is controlled _by the general .venue statute for tort actions, i.e., venue is proper only at the situs of an injury or in the place or places where the breach of a legal duty occurs that subsequently causes a person to suffer damages (MCL 600.2922, 600.1629; MSA 27A.2922, 27A.1629).
References
Am Jur 2d, Death § 389; Venue §§ 36, 37.
Venue of wrongful death action. 36 ALR2d 1146.
Sinas, Dramis, Brake, Boughton, McIntyre & Reisig, P.C. (by George T. Sinas, Barry D. Bough-ton, and David Brake), for the plaintiff.
Tolley, Fisher & Verwys, P.C. (by Mark H. Verwys and Hilary Curtis Arthur), for DMI, Inc.
Wheeler Upham, P.C. (by Gary A. Maximiuk), for Dan Lenneman.

Opinion:
on remand
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Holbrook, Jr., JJ.
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff successfully appealed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for change of venue in Huhn v DMI, Inc, 207 Mich App 313; 524 NW2d 254 (1994). In lieu of granting defendant's motion for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court has remanded this case to us for reconsideration in light of Gross v General Motors Corp, 448 Mich 147; 528 NW2d 707 (1995). 450 Mich 902 (1995). We reverse our prior decision.
We review a trial court's decision concerning a motion for a change of venue to determine whether it was clearly erroneous. Vermilya v Carter Crompton Site Development Contractors, Inc, 201 Mich App 467, 471; 506 NW2d 580 (1993). In Gross, supra at 165, the Supreme Court clarified "the role of damages in establishing tort venue." The Court concluded that
venue in a tort action is proper only at the situs of an injury, or in the place or places where the breach of a legal duty occurs that subsequently causes a person to suffer damages. Tangential damages that occur other than at such places are irrelevant to venue determination. [Id.]
In this case, plaintiff's decedent was injured in Ionia County, where her body was found in the grain wagon. We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in granting defendant's motion to change venue from Ingham County to Ionia County.
The fact that this case involves a wrongful death action does not change the result. The Court in Gross construed the general venue statute for tort actions, MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629. The wrongful death statute, MCL 600.2922; MSA 27A.2922, contains no specific venue provision and therefore venue is controlled by the general venue statute for tort actions. Johnson v Simongton, 184 Mich App 186, 190; 457 NW2d 129 (1990).
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.