MCL § 600.2955a – Plaintiff’s impairment (intoxication) defense
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 600
Act 236 of 1961
236-1961-29
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
600.2955a Impaired ability to function due to influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance as absolute defense; definitions.
Sec. 2955a.
(1) It is an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, and as a result of that impaired ability, the individual was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event that resulted in the death or injury. If the individual described in this subsection was less than 50% the cause of the accident or event, an award of damages shall be reduced by that percentage.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) “Controlled substance” means that term as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.7104 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(b) “Impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance” means that, as a result of an individual drinking, ingesting, smoking, or otherwise consuming intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, the individual’s senses are impaired to the point that the ability to react is diminished from what it would be had the individual not consumed liquor or a controlled substance. An individual is presumed under this section to have an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance if, under a standard prescribed by section 625a of the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being section 257.625a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, a presumption would arise that the individual’s ability to operate a vehicle was impaired.
MCL § 600.2955a Summary
This Michigan statute outlines specific conditions under which a person’s intoxication can either completely bar their ability to recover damages in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit, or significantly reduce the amount they can recover. The statute establishes an “absolute defense” for the defendant if the injured or deceased individual had an impaired ability to function due to alcohol or controlled substances, and this impairment was 50% or more the cause of the incident leading to their injury or death.
If the impaired individual was less than 50% at fault due to their impairment, their award of damages will be reduced by the percentage of their fault. The statute also defines “controlled substance” by referencing the Michigan Public Health Code and clarifies what constitutes “impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance,” including a presumption of impairment based on standards used for operating a vehicle under the influence.
Purpose of MCL § 600.2955a
The legislative intent behind this statute is to promote personal responsibility and fairness in personal injury litigation. It aims to prevent individuals who significantly contribute to their own injuries or death through their impaired state from fully shifting the financial burden onto other parties. By establishing a clear threshold for intoxication-related fault, the law provides a mechanism for defendants to avoid or limit liability when the plaintiff’s own impaired judgment and actions were a major contributing factor to the accident or event. This reflects a policy decision to hold individuals accountable for the consequences of their choices when under the influence of substances.
Real-World Example of MCL § 600.2955a
Consider a hypothetical scenario: John attends a party, consumes a significant amount of alcohol, and then decides to walk home in the dark along a poorly lit road. While walking, he stumbles into the street, where he is hit by a car driven by Jane, who was driving slightly above the speed limit but otherwise attentively. John sustains serious injuries and later files a personal injury lawsuit against Jane, claiming she was negligent.
During the discovery process, evidence emerges showing John’s high blood alcohol content at the time of the accident. Expert testimony indicates that John’s severe intoxication significantly impaired his balance, judgment, and awareness of his surroundings, making him less able to react safely. A jury determines that while Jane was 40% at fault for speeding, John’s impaired ability to function due to alcohol was 60% the cause of the accident because it led him to enter the roadway unexpectedly and rendered him unable to avoid the collision. Under MCL § 600.2955a, because John’s impairment was 50% or more the cause of the accident, Jane would have an absolute defense, and John would recover nothing for his injuries. If the jury had found John’s impairment to be 40% the cause, his damage award would be reduced by 40%.
Related Statutes
MCL § 600.2955a directly references and is informed by other Michigan statutes:
- MCL § 333.7104 (Public Health Code – Controlled Substance Definition): This section of the Public Health Code provides the legal definition of a “controlled substance” that is adopted for the purposes of MCL § 600.2955a. This ensures consistency in what substances are considered when assessing impairment.
- MCL § 257.625a (Michigan Vehicle Code – Presumption of Impaired Operation): This section of the Michigan Vehicle Code establishes standards for when a presumption arises that an individual’s ability to operate a vehicle was impaired due to intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance (e.g., blood alcohol content thresholds). MCL § 600.2955a explicitly states that if these standards would lead to a presumption of impaired vehicle operation, then a presumption of impaired ability to function also arises under this defense statute. This provides a clear evidentiary guideline for determining impairment.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.2955a
Michigan courts have had opportunities to interpret and apply this statute. A notable case is *Hensick v. Hensick, 269 Mich App 457 (2005)*. In this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the application of MCL § 600.2955a as an absolute defense. The court affirmed that if the plaintiff’s impaired ability to function due to intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance was 50% or more the cause of the accident or event resulting in injury, then the defendant is entitled to an absolute defense, effectively barring the plaintiff’s recovery. This case provides important precedent for how the statute’s “absolute defense” provision is to be understood and applied in personal injury actions.
Why MCL § 600.2955a Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
MCL § 600.2955a is a critical statute for both plaintiffs and defendants in Michigan personal injury cases. For plaintiffs, it serves as a significant warning: if their own impaired state due to alcohol or drugs contributed substantially to their injuries, their ability to recover damages may be severely limited or entirely extinguished. This means that a thorough investigation into the plaintiff’s condition and conduct at the time of the incident is paramount. Plaintiffs’ attorneys must carefully assess the likelihood of this defense being raised and its potential impact on their client’s claim, often requiring a detailed reconstruction of events and a strong argument for why the plaintiff’s impairment was *not* the predominant cause.
For defendants, MCL § 600.2955a provides a powerful tool to mitigate or eliminate liability. If evidence can establish that the injured party’s impairment was 50% or more the cause of the incident, it can lead to a complete dismissal of the claim. Even if the impairment is less than 50% causative, it can still substantially reduce the damages awarded. Defense attorneys will meticulously investigate the plaintiff’s toxicology, behavior, and any witness accounts to build a case that the plaintiff’s impairment was a significant factor. This statute adds a crucial layer of complexity to personal injury litigation, often making causation and the plaintiff’s comparative fault key battlegrounds in cases where substance use is involved.