Case Name: RENO v. CHUNG
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1996-11-12
Citations: 220 Mich. App. 102
Docket Number: Docket No. 175158
Parties: RENO v CHUNG
Judges: Before: Mackenzie, P.J., and Cavanagh and T. L. Ludington JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 220
Pages: 102–115

Head Matter:
RENO v CHUNG
Docket No. 175158.
Submitted March 5, 1996, at Detroit.
Decided November 12, 1996, at 9:30 A.M.
Leave to appeal sought.
Kenneth Reno brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Yung A. Chung, M.D., a Wayne County Medical Examiner, and others, seeking, in relevant part, damages resulting from Dr. Chung’s alleged gross negligence with regard to her performance of an autopsy following the murder of the plaintiff’s wife and daughter. The plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully charged with the murders as a result of Dr. Chung’s erroneous statements after the autopsy that the daughter’s injuries would have prevented her from speaking to the plaintiff just before she died, as the plaintiff had claimed. The court, Diane M. Hathaway, J., granted summary disposition for Dr. Chung, in part, because, as a county medical examiner, she owed no duty to the plaintiff when conducting the autopsy. The plaintiff appealed from that order.
The Court of Appeals held,-.
1. Summary disposition was properly granted. Under the public-duty doctrine, a public official such as a county medical examiner owes a duty to the general public and not to any one individual unless a special relationship exists between the official and the individual. The existence of a special relationship requires, at a minimum, some contact between the official involved and the victim and reliance by the victim upon the promises or actions of the official.
2. There was no special relationship between the plaintiff and Dr. Chung. Although Dr. Chung’s incorrect autopsy findings may have breached the duty she owed the general public, in the absence of a duty owed to the plaintiff individually, the plaintiff failed to set forth a cognizable claim of negligence.
3. To the extent that the plaintiff’s claim was also based on Dr. Chung’s alleged negligent preliminary examination testimony, statements made by a witness in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged where they are relevant, material, or pertinent to the issues being tried.
Affirmed.
T. L. Ludington, J., dissenting, stated that Dr. Chung did have a duty to the plaintiff that was unique or special from the duty she owed to the public in general as a public employee.
1. Although the public-duty doctrine applies in this case, the special-relationship test does not because that test applies only to police officers and governmental safety professionals. The potential for iqjury to the plaintiff was evident at the time Dr. Chung rendered her opinion, and the identification of the plaintiff as the party directly affected by Dr. Chung’s opinion was real and specific, not hypothetical or general.
2. The witness privilege is not applicable here because the allegations relate to Dr. Chung’s opinion, which she rendered long before she was called as a witness.
3. The plaintiff demonstrated the existence of an issue that should be resolved by the jury with respect to Dr. Chung’s alleged breach of the standard of care.
1. Public Officers — Public-Duty Doctrine — Special-Relationship Exception.
The public-duty doctrine applies in Michigan and provides that a public official owes a duty to the general public and not to any one individual; the special-relationship exception to the public-duty doctrine exposes a public official to liability for negligence where there is a special relationship between the official and the individual harmed by the negligence; the existence of a special relationship requires, at a minimum, some contact between the official and the individual and reliance by the individual upon the promises or actions of the official.
2. Negligence — Witnesses — Judicial Proceedings — Absolute Privilege.
Statements made by a witness in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged provided they were relevant, material, or pertinent to the issues being tried.
Donald M. Fulkerson, for the plaintiff.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Wayne County Corporation Counsel, and Ellen E. Mason, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for the defendant.
Before: Mackenzie, P.J., and Cavanagh and T. L. Ludington JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Mackenzie, P.J.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition for Wayne County Medical Examiner Dr. Yung A. Chung (hereafter defendant). We affirm.
On May 10, 1991, plaintiff came home from a shopping trip and discovered that his wife, Carlynne; and daughter, Robin, had been repeatedly stabbed. Additionally, Robin's throat had been cut. Plaintiff told investigators that Robin's dying words were that an acquaintance, Tommy Collins, was the peipetrator.
The police and the prosecutor's office considered both Collins and plaintiff to be suspects in the murders. Assistant Prosecutor Daniel Less met with defendant medical examiner, who informed Less that the wounds to Robin's neck would have made it impossible for her to talk. On the basis of this information, the authorities believed plaintiff was lying about the events of May 10. On May 11, he was charged with murder, arrested, and held without bond. Plaintiff was bound over following a preliminary examination at which defendant testified that, given the nature of the injuries to her throat, Robin could not possibly have spoken to plaintiff.
Prosecutor Less subsequently consulted with another pathologist and an otolaryngologist, both of whom found incorrect defendant's, opinion that Robin would not have been able to talk. This information, along with other evidence, led to the dismissal of the charges against plaintiff the following October. Collins and another individual were eventually convicted of the murders. This suit alleging defendant's gross negligence followed.
The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant in part because, as county medical exam iner, she owed no duty to plaintiff when conducting an autopsy. The question whether a duty exists is one of law for the court's resolution. Gazette v Pontiac, 212 Mich App 162, 170; 536 NW2d 854 (1995). In a negligence action, summary disposition is properly granted pursuant to' MCR 2.116(C)(8) if it is determined as a matter of law that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff. Id. We find that summary disposition was properly granted in this case.
Our Supreme Court has recently held that the public-duty doctrine applies in Michigan. White v Beasley, 453 Mich 308; 552 NW2d 1 (1996). Under the public-duty doctrine, a public official owes a duty to the general public and not to any one individual unless a special relationship exists between the official and the individual. Jones v Wilcox, 190 Mich App 564, 568; 476 NW2d 473 (1991). See also Simonds v Tibbitts, 165 Mich App 480, 483; 419 NW2d 5 (1987). At a minimum, the existence of a special relationship requires some contact between the official involved and the victim and reliance by the victim upon the promises or actions of the official. Gazette, supra, pp 170-171. A county medical examiner is a public official. See, generally, Burse v Wayne Co Medical Examiner, 151 Mich App 761; 391 NW2d 479 (1986); O'Toole v Fortino, 97 Mich App 797; 295 NW2d 867 (1980); Allinger v Kell, 102 Mich App 798; 302 NW2d 576 (1981), reversed and remanded in part on other grounds 411 Mich 1053 (1981).
In this case, there was no special relationship between plaintiff and defendant. The parties never had direct contact with one another, and plaintiff never relied on defendant's actions. Gazette, supra. Instead, as part of her public duty to detect crime and obtain evidence, Allinger, supra, p 818 (opinion of Mackenzie, P.J.), defendant's relationship was with plaintiffs adversary, the prosecutor's office. Defendant owed a duty to the general public to make an investigation into the cause and manner of Robin's death, MCL 52.202; MSA 5.953(2), by performing the autopsy and "carefully reducing] . to writing every fact and circumstance tending to show the condition of the body," MCL 52.205(3); MSA 5.953(5)(3). While defendant's incorrect autopsy findings may have breached the duty she owed the general public, in the absence of a duty owed to plaintiff individually, plaintiff failed to set forth a cognizable claim of negligence. Jones, supra, p 568.
To the extent that plaintiff's claim was also premised on the theory that defendant was negligent in testifying at plaintiff's preliminary examination, summary disposition was also proper. It is well settled in Michigan that statements made by a witness in the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged provided they were relevant, material, or pertinent to the issues being tried. Meyer v Hubbell, 117 Mich App 699, 709; 324 NW2d 139 (1982), citing Sanders v Leeson Air Conditioning Corp, 362 Mich 692, 695; 108 NW2d 761 (1961), and Pagoto v Hancock, 41 Mich App 622, 623; 200 NW2d 777 (1972). See also Couch v Schultz, 193 Mich App 292, 294-295; 483 NW2d 684 (1992). Defendant therefore may not be held liable for any "negligent" testimony given at plaintiff's preliminary examination.
Our disposition of the above issues makes it unnecessary to address plaintiff's remaining claims on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cavanagh, J., concurred.