Opinion ID: 848695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Possible Unintended Results of the DeShambo and Ormsby Decisions

Text: DeShambo [4] and Ormsby read together could have unfortunate unintended results in future cases. Under the tort reform statutes, with few exceptions, liability is no longer joint but only several. M.C.L. § 600.2956. It is based on fault. M.C.L. § 600.2957(1). The fault of a party is determined by the trier of fact regardless of whether the party can be held legally liable. M.C.L. § 600.6304(1). However, an injured individual can recover only from a party that can be held legally liable. The trier of fact may assign fault to one who engages an independent contractor and then negligently directs the actions of that contractor. But under today's decisions in Ormsby and DeShambo, such an employer, landowner or otherwise, could not be held liable unless an injury occurs in a common work area. Hence, employers now can conceivably escape all liability for their own negligence in a given accident. I believe that this result is not consistent with the principles underlying the common law. It is inconsistent, also, with the intent of the tort reform statutes. A negligent actor should be legally liable for his actions. Because the majority's decision undermines this principle, I disagree and would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.