Opinion ID: 2020444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: kik v. sbraccia [4]

Text: A pregnant Rebecca Kik was being transported in an ambulance owned by defendant Kinross Charter Township. Defendant John-Christopher Sbraccia, an employee of defendant Kinross Charter Township Emergency Medical Services, was driving the ambulance. He lost control of it and overturned in a ditch. As a result of the crash, Rebecca sustained numerous injuries. She also went into premature labor, causing her to deliver her daughter, Sharon Kik. Sharon died the same day. Plaintiffs Rebecca and Robert Kik, who is Rebecca's husband and Sharon's father, brought suit against the township, the emergency medical service, and Sbraccia. Included among the causes of action were claims for loss of consortium. One was filed on behalf of Robert seeking damages for the injuries suffered by his wife. And one was filed on behalf of Robert and Rebecca, because of the death of their daughter. Defendants moved for summary disposition, claiming that governmental immunity barred the loss of consortium claims. The trial, court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed with respect to the denial of summary disposition for the governmental agencies on Robert's loss of consortium claim arising out of the injuries suffered by his wife. The Court determined regarding this claim that it was bound by its prior decision in Wesche and had to reverse the denial of summary disposition to the governmental agencies. [5] But the panel also concluded that Wesche had been incorrectly decided and declared that it would have decided the issue differently were it not for Wesche. [6] The panel reasoned that Wesche had confused the concepts of liability and damages. [7] It concluded that the Wesche panel had erred because, once a plaintiff has shown bodily injury, liability is established and the plaintiff may recover whatever damages arise from the bodily injury. [8] And it would have found that loss of consortium is one such damage. [9] After the Kik I panel determined that Wesche had been incorrectly decided, a special panel of the Court of Appeals was convened. A majority of the special panel concluded that Wesche had been incorrectly decided and overruled it. [10] In Kik II, the majority expressly adopted the Kik I panel's reasoning as its own. [11]