MCL § 600.5851 – Disabilities of infancy or insanity (tolling)
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 600
Act 236 of 1961
236-1961-58
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
600.5851 Disabilities of infancy or insanity; tacking of successive disabilities prohibited; year of grace; removing disability of infancy; claim alleging medical malpractice accruing to person 8 years old or less or 13 years old or less; disability of imprisonment; “release from imprisonment” defined.
Sec. 5851.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (7) and (8), if the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action under this act is under 18 years of age or insane at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed through death or otherwise, to make the entry or bring the action although the period of limitations has run. This section does not lessen the time provided for in section 5852.
(2) The term insane as employed in this chapter means a condition of mental derangement such as to prevent the sufferer from comprehending rights he or she is otherwise bound to know and is not dependent on whether or not the person has been judicially declared to be insane.
(3) To be considered a disability, the infancy or insanity must exist at the time the claim accrues. If the disability comes into existence after the claim has accrued, a court shall not recognize the disability under this section for the purpose of modifying the period of limitations.
(4) A person shall not tack successive disabilities. A court shall recognize only those disabilities that exist at the time the claim first accrues and that disable the person to whom the claim first accrues for the purpose of modifying the period of limitations.
(5) A court shall recognize both of the disabilities of infancy or insanity that disable the person to whom the claim first accrues at the time the claim first accrues. A court shall count the year of grace provided in this section from the termination of the last disability to the person to whom the claim originally accrued that has continued from the time the claim accrued, whether this disability terminates because of the death of the person disabled or for some other reason.
(6) With respect to a claim accruing before the effective date of the age of majority act of 1971, Act No. 79 of the Public Acts of 1971, being sections 722.51 to 722.55 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the disability of infancy is removed as of the effective date of Act No. 79 of the Public Acts of 1971, as to persons who were at least 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age on January 1, 1972, and is removed as of the eighteenth birthday of a person who was under 18 years of age on January 1, 1972.
(7) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (8), if, at the time a claim alleging medical malpractice accrues to a person under section 5838a the person has not reached his or her eighth birthday, a person shall not bring an action based on the claim unless the action is commenced on or before the person’s tenth birthday or within the period of limitations set forth in section 5838a, whichever is later. If, at the time a claim alleging medical malpractice accrues to a person under section 5838a, the person has reached his or her eighth birthday, he or she is subject to the period of limitations set forth in section 5838a.
(8) If, at the time a claim alleging medical malpractice accrues to a person under section 5838a, the person has not reached his or her thirteenth birthday and if the claim involves an injury to the person’s reproductive system, a person shall not bring an action based on the claim unless the action is commenced on or before the person’s fifteenth birthday or within the period of limitations set forth in section 5838a, whichever is later. If, at the time a claim alleging medical malpractice accrues to a person under section 5838a, the person has reached his or her thirteenth birthday and the claim involves an injury to the person’s reproductive system, he or she is subject to the period of limitations set forth in section 5838a.
(9) If a person was serving a term of imprisonment on the effective date of the 1993 amendatory act that added this subsection, and that person has a cause of action to which the disability of imprisonment would have been applicable under the former provisions of this section, an entry may be made or an action may be brought under this act for that cause of action within 1 year after the effective date of the 1993 amendatory act that added this subsection, or within any other applicable period of limitation provided by law.
(10) If a person died or was released from imprisonment at any time within the period of 1 year preceding the effective date of the 1993 amendatory act that added this subsection, and that person had a cause of action to which the disability of imprisonment would have been applicable under the former provisions of this section on the date of his or her death or release from imprisonment, an entry may be made or an action may be brought under this act for that cause of action within 1 year after the date of his or her death or release from imprisonment, or within any other applicable period of limitation provided by law.
(11) As used in this section, “release from imprisonment” means either of the following:
(a) A final release or discharge from imprisonment in a county jail.
(b) Release on parole or a final release or discharge from imprisonment in a state or federal correctional facility.
MCL § 600.5851 Summary
This Michigan statute, MCL § 600.5851, provides for the “tolling” or temporary pausing of the statute of limitations in personal injury and other civil claims when the person who suffered the injury or has the right to bring a lawsuit is under a legal disability. Specifically, it addresses the disabilities of “infancy” (being under 18 years of age) and “insanity” (a mental derangement preventing comprehension of one’s rights).
The general rule is that if an individual is a minor or insane when their legal claim arises, they or their representatives have an additional year to file a lawsuit *after* the disability is removed (e.g., turning 18, regaining mental capacity, or death), even if the standard statute of limitations has already expired.
Key provisions include:
- Definition of Insanity: It means a mental derangement that prevents understanding one’s rights, regardless of a judicial declaration of insanity.
- Accrual Requirement: The disability must exist at the precise moment the claim “accrues” (when the injury occurs or is discovered). Disabilities that arise later do not trigger this tolling provision.
- No Tacking: A person cannot combine multiple, successive disabilities to extend the limitations period indefinitely. Only the disability existing when the claim first accrues is considered. If both infancy and insanity exist simultaneously at accrual, the “year of grace” begins after the *last* of those disabilities terminates.
- Medical Malpractice Exceptions: Subsections (7) and (8) create specific rules for medical malpractice claims involving minors. For claims accruing to a child under eight years old, the action must generally be filed by their tenth birthday or within the standard medical malpractice limitations period, whichever is later. If the claim involves an injury to a minor’s reproductive system and accrues before their thirteenth birthday, the action must be filed by their fifteenth birthday or within the standard period, whichever is later.
- Former Imprisonment Disability: Subsections (9), (10), and (11) address the historical disability of imprisonment, which was removed from the statute. These subsections provide transition rules for claims that would have been covered by the imprisonment disability before its removal in 1993, defining “release from imprisonment.”
Purpose of MCL § 600.5851
The legislative purpose behind this statute is to protect vulnerable individuals who, due to their age or mental condition, are presumed incapable of understanding or asserting their legal rights within the standard statutory timeframes. Statutes of limitations are designed to encourage prompt filing of lawsuits and ensure that evidence remains fresh, but rigid application could lead to severe injustice for minors or those with severe mental impairments.
By pausing, or “tolling,” the statute of limitations, MCL § 600.5851 ensures that these protected groups have a fair opportunity to seek justice once their disability is removed. It acknowledges that a child cannot reasonably be expected to file a lawsuit, nor can someone suffering from a profound mental derangement. The “year of grace” provides a reasonable window for the newly capacitated individual or their representatives to take action, striking a balance between protecting the rights of the injured and the need for finality in legal disputes.
Real-World Example of MCL § 600.5851
Imagine a scenario where a five-year-old child, Sarah, is severely injured in a car accident caused by a negligent driver. In Michigan, the standard statute of limitations for personal injury is generally three years. If Sarah were an adult, she would typically have until her eighth birthday to file a lawsuit.
However, because Sarah is a minor (under 18) at the time the claim accrues, MCL § 600.5851 comes into play. Her “infancy” tolls the statute of limitations. This means the three-year clock doesn’t simply run out when she’s eight. Instead, the period for bringing her claim is extended. Under subsection (1), Sarah will have one year *after* her disability of infancy is removed (i.e., after she turns 18) to file her lawsuit, even if the original three-year period has long passed. So, she would have until her nineteenth birthday to commence legal action.
Now consider a different scenario: Michael, a 30-year-old, suffers a traumatic brain injury in a slip-and-fall incident, rendering him severely mentally deranged to the point where he cannot comprehend his legal rights. If this mental derangement (insanity) exists at the exact time his claim for the slip-and-fall accrues, his statute of limitations would also be tolled. If Michael remains in this state for several years, he would have one year from the date his mental capacity is restored (or one year from his death) to bring a claim, thanks to the protection offered by MCL § 600.5851.
Related Statutes
Several Michigan statutes are closely related to MCL § 600.5851, providing context for its application:
- MCL § 600.5852 – General Tolling: This statute outlines other circumstances under which the statute of limitations might be tolled, such as a defendant’s absence from the state. MCL § 600.5851 specifically states that it does not lessen the time provided for in section 5852, indicating that the two statutes can coexist and potentially offer cumulative protections, though not through “tacking successive disabilities” on the same person for the same claim.
- MCL § 600.5838a – Medical Malpractice; Period of Limitations: This statute sets the specific statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions in Michigan. Subsections (7) and (8) of MCL § 600.5851 directly reference and modify these limitations for minors involved in medical malpractice claims, creating specific rules that can override the general infancy tolling for those particular types of claims.
- MCL §§ 722.51 to 722.55 – Age of Majority Act of 1971: Referenced in subsection (6) of MCL § 600.5851, this act changed the age of majority in Michigan from 21 to 18. Subsection (6) addresses how this change impacted the removal of the disability of infancy for claims accruing before its effective date, providing important historical context for understanding the precise timing of when infancy was considered “removed” for older claims.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.5851
Michigan courts have frequently interpreted MCL § 600.5851, particularly concerning the medical malpractice exceptions for minors and the definition of “insanity.”
- Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 564, 537 N.W.2d 208 (1995): This Michigan Supreme Court case examined the application of the medical malpractice tolling provision for minors, specifically the “tenth birthday” rule found in MCL § 600.5851(7). The Court clarified how this specific provision interacts with the general infancy tolling rules, noting that for medical malpractice claims, the specific “tenth birthday” rule or the two-year discovery rule from MCL § 600.5838a takes precedence over the general infancy tolling for young children. You can find more information about this case by searching for Lemmerman v. Fealk on Google Scholar.
- Gebhardt v. O’Rourke, 494 Mich. 328, 835 N.W.2d 375 (2013): The Michigan Supreme Court provided significant clarification on the “insanity” disability under MCL § 600.5851. The Court reiterated that the mental derangement must prevent the sufferer from comprehending their rights and emphasized that the disability must exist *at the time the claim accrues*. It clarified that mere incompetence or inability to manage one’s affairs, without the inability to comprehend rights, is not sufficient for the “insanity” tolling provision to apply. You can find more information about this case by searching for Gebhardt v. O’Rourke on Google Scholar.
Why MCL § 600.5851 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
MCL § 600.5851 is a cornerstone statute in Michigan personal injury litigation, significantly impacting both plaintiff and defense strategies.
For plaintiffs and their attorneys, this statute is crucial for preserving the rights of their most vulnerable clients. It means that:
- Claims are not lost prematurely: A child or a severely mentally incapacitated individual will not have their claim automatically barred simply because the standard statute of limitations has run out before they could reasonably act.
- Strategic timing: Attorneys representing minors or individuals with mental disabilities must understand when the “year of grace” begins and how it interacts with other statutes of limitations, especially in complex medical malpractice cases. This knowledge is vital for advising clients on the appropriate time to file.
- Extended discovery and preparation: The extended period can allow for more thorough investigation, gathering of evidence, and expert consultation, especially for injuries that might take time to fully manifest or for victims whose communication is impaired.
For defendants and their legal teams, understanding this statute is equally important because:
- Extended exposure: Defendants in cases involving minors or mentally incapacitated individuals face a longer period of potential legal exposure than in standard cases. This impacts risk assessment, reserving, and claims management.
- Fact-finding challenges: Defending older claims can be difficult due to the passage of time, loss of evidence, faded memories of witnesses, and the potential unavailability of key personnel.
- Early identification of disabilities: Defense counsel must ascertain early on if a plaintiff was under a disability at the time of claim accrual, as this directly affects the viability of a statute of limitations defense.
- Medical malpractice complexities: The specific carve-outs for medical malpractice claims involving minors introduce additional layers of complexity, requiring careful calculation of deadlines.
Ultimately, MCL § 600.5851 ensures that the Michigan legal system remains accessible to those who are least able to advocate for themselves, profoundly shaping the landscape of personal injury claims involving minors and individuals with severe mental impairments.