Schedule a Consultation | Toll Free: 1-800-678-1307
Trial lawyers specializing in personal injury and civil litigation

"Contract immunity" defense rejected

In Maday v. Harold Miller Real Estate, the Defendant claimed it should not have to pay the verdict against it because its negligence arose out of a contractual relationship with the Plaintiff.  The Court of Appeals rejected this claim as an over-statement of the contractual immunity theory created by the Engler Majority of the Michigan Supreme Court.  Under the latter rationale, a party who contracts to act is relieved of any responsibility outside the contract--even the responsibility to act "reasonably".  In rejecting the Defendant's argument, the Court noted that when the Engler majority created the suggestion that a contract duty eliminates any duty arising out of negligence, it expressly limited that ruling to claims made by third-parties to the contract.  The Maday court was not willing to expand  what commentators have called "contractual immunity."

The underlying Supreme Court case, Fultz v. Union-Commerce Association, has been roundly criticized by commentators, victims' attorneys, and insurance attorneys alike, as contrary to sound reasoning and sound public policy. Making a promise to one other person to perform a contractual undertaking should not relieve any actor of the duty to act reasonably:  assuming an "extra" duty by contract should not relieve people of their inherent duty to comply with the standard of reasonable care. 

Thompson O’Neil, P.C.
309 East Front Street
Traverse City, Michigan 49684
Toll Free: 1-800-678-1307
Fax: 231-929-7262