Court Opinion

ID: 9725617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:56:15.27244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:14.573465
License: Public Domain

*104Mackenzie, 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*105iner, 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 *106obtain 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.
*107Cavanagh, J., concurred.