As part of its statutory charge to examine current judicial decisions for the purpose of discovering defects in the law and to recommend needed reform, the Michigan Law Revision Commission undertook a review of several Michigan Court of Appeals' opinions brought to the Commission's attention by Judge Maura Corrigan that identify statutes that may be in need of legislative reform. At the least, these cases suggest that the Legislature should review these statutes to confirm that the Court's understanding of what the Legislature intended is, in fact, consistent with that intent.
The Commission reviewed the following cases:
Miller v. Riverwood Recreation Center, Inc., 215 Mich. App. 561, 546 N.W.2d 684 (1996)(dealing with the application of M.C.L. § 600.2925d; M.S.A. § 27A.2925(4), contribution among joint tortfeasors).
People v. Switras, 217 Mich. App. 142, 550 N.W.2d 842 (1996)(dealing with the application of M.C.L. § 750.239; M.S.A. § 28.436, firearms forfeiture).
Ladd v. Ford Consumer Finance Co., 217 Mich. App. 119, 550 N.W.2d 826 (1996)(dealing with M.C.L. § 125.2301; M.S.A. § 19.855(101), transfer of title to mobile homes).
Cooper v. Wade, 218 Mich. App. 649 (1996); and In the Matter of the Estate of Henderson, 1996 WL 518017 (1996), rehearing granted and overruled, 1996 WL 682922 (1996)(dealing with the issue of government liability to injured passengers in a vehicle fleeing police pursuit).
People v. Poole, 218 Mich. App. 702 (1996)(involving the construction of the repeat drug offender statute, M.C.L. § 333.7413, M.S.A. § 14.15(7413)).
Platte Lake Improvement Ass'n v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 218 Mich. App. 424, 554 N.W.2d 342 (1996)(concluding that costs recoverable in lawsuits brought under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act do not include an award of attorney fees).
Those decisions are analyzed in the attached Report. Copies of the opinions are attached to that Report as Appendices 1-6.
1. Should the good faith requirement in the Michigan contribution statute, M.C.L. § 600.2925d; M.S.A. § 27A.2925(4), be amended to include a provision that in assessing the good faith of the settling tortfeasor, courts may inquire whether, among other things, the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries?
Yes. The Commission recommends that the Legislature overrule Miller v. Riverwood, and amend M.C.L. § 600.2925d, M.S.A. § 27A.2925(4), by adding the following language to that subsection:
In determining whether a settlement agreement has been entered into in good faith under this subsection, the court shall inquire, among other things, whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor's proportional share of liability for the plaintiff's injuries.
2. Should M.C.L. § 752.862 M.C.L. §§ 28.436(22), dealing with firearms offenses causing property damage, be amended to expressly provide that firearms used in violation of that section are subject to forfeiture?
Yes. The Commission recommends that the Legislature amend M.C.L. § 752.862; M.S.A. § 28.436(22), by adding the following provision:
All pistols, weapons, or devices carried, possessed or used contrary to section 752.862 [section 28.436(22)] are hereby declared forfeited to the state, and shall be turned over to the commissioner of the Michigan state police or his designated representative, for such disposition as the commissioner may prescribe.
3. Should the title provisions of the Mobile Home Commission Act be amended to provide that a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes title to a mobile home?
No. The Commission recommends that the Legislature codify Ladd v. Ford Consumer Finance by adding the following sentence to the scope section of the Uniform Commercial Code, M.C.L. § 440.2102, M.S.A. § 19.2102:
The provisions of this article dealing with title to goods do not apply to transactions subject to the Mobile Home Commission Act, the Motor Vehicle Code, or the Water Certificates of Title Act.
4. Should the Government Tort Liability Act be amended to bar suits against police officers and their employers for injuries suffered by passengers who are in a vehicle that is fleeing police pursuit?
The Commission recommends that no action be taken.
5. Should M.C.L. § 333.7413, M.S.A. § 14.15(7413), regarding nonparolable life imprisonment for repeat controlled substance offenders, be amended to clarify the circumstances under which a life sentence without parole may be imposed?
The Commission recommends that no action be taken.
6. Should the Michigan Environmental Protection Act be amended to include attorney fees as an item of awardable costs in MEPA litigation?
The Commission recommends that no action be taken.