Reach us 24/7

Reach us 24/7

MCL § 600.6304 – Judgment entry; several liability and reallocation

Table of Contents

Code Details

Chapter 600

Act 236 of 1961

236-1961-63

Exact Statute Text

Click to view the complete statute text

600.6304 Personal injury action involving fault of more than 1 party to action; instructing jury to answer special interrogatories; findings of court; determining percentages of fault; determining award of damages; release from liability; amount of damages; reducing award of damages; reallocation of uncollectible amount; liability of governmental agency; “fault” defined.

Sec. 6304.

(1) In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death involving fault of more than 1 person, including third-party defendants and nonparties, the court, unless otherwise agreed by all parties to the action, shall instruct the jury to answer special interrogatories or, if there is no jury, shall make findings indicating both of the following:
(a) The total amount of each plaintiff’s damages.
(b) The percentage of the total fault of all persons that contributed to the death or injury, including each plaintiff and each person released from liability under section 2925d, regardless of whether the person was or could have been named as a party to the action.
(2) In determining the percentages of fault under subsection (1)(b), the trier of fact shall consider both the nature of the conduct of each person at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and the damages claimed.
(3) The court shall determine the award of damages to each plaintiff in accordance with the findings under subsection (1), subject to any reduction under subsection (5) or section 2955a or 6303, and shall enter judgment against each party, including a third-party defendant, except that judgment shall not be entered against a person who has been released from liability as provided in section 2925d.
(4) Liability in an action to which this section applies is several only and not joint. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6), a person shall not be required to pay damages in an amount greater than his or her percentage of fault as found under subsection (1). This subsection and section 2956 do not apply to a defendant that is jointly and severally liable under section 6312.
(5) In an action alleging medical malpractice, the court shall reduce an award of damages in excess of 1 of the limitations set forth in section 1483 to the amount of the appropriate limitation set forth in section 1483. The jury shall not be advised by the court or by counsel for either party of the limitations set forth in section 1483 or any other provision of section 1483.
(6) If an action includes a medical malpractice claim against a person or entity described in section 5838a(1), 1 of the following applies:
(a) If the plaintiff is determined to be without fault under subsections (1) and (2), the liability of each defendant is joint and several, whether or not the defendant is a person or entity described in section 5838a(1).
(b) If the plaintiff is determined to have fault under subsections (1) and (2), upon motion made not later than 6 months after a final judgment is entered, the court shall determine whether all or part of a party’s share of the obligation is uncollectible from that party, and shall reallocate any uncollectible amount among the other parties, whether or not another party is a person or entity described in section 5838a(1), according to their respective percentages of fault as determined under subsection (1). A party is not required to pay a percentage of any uncollectible amount that exceeds that party’s percentage of fault as determined under subsection (1). The party whose liability is reallocated continues to be subject to contribution and to any continuing liability to the plaintiff on the judgment.
(7) Notwithstanding subsection (6), a governmental agency, other than a governmental hospital or medical care facility, is not required to pay a percentage of any uncollectible amount that exceeds the governmental agency’s percentage of fault as determined under subsection (1).
(8) As used in this section, “fault” includes an act, an omission, conduct, including intentional conduct, a breach of warranty, or a breach of a legal duty, or any conduct that could give rise to the imposition of strict liability, that is a proximate cause of damage sustained by a party.

MCL § 600.6304 Summary

This Michigan statute outlines the procedures for determining and awarding damages in personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death cases where multiple parties share responsibility for the harm. It mandates that juries (or judges, if there’s no jury) determine the total amount of damages for each plaintiff and the percentage of fault for every person who contributed to the injury or death, including the plaintiff themselves and even individuals who were not formally named as parties but who contributed to the incident. These fault percentages are based on both the nature of each person’s conduct and the extent to which their conduct caused the damages.

The statute establishes a system of “several liability,” meaning that, generally, each party is only responsible for paying damages up to their determined percentage of fault, rather than being jointly responsible for the entire judgment. However, it carves out significant exceptions for medical malpractice claims. In medical malpractice cases, if the plaintiff is found to be without any fault, all defendants become jointly and severally liable. If the plaintiff is found to have some fault, and a defendant’s share of the obligation is uncollectible, that uncollectible amount may be reallocated among the other at-fault parties, although a party is not required to pay more than their own percentage of the uncollectible amount. Governmental agencies have specific protections regarding reallocation of uncollectible amounts. The statute also provides a broad definition of “fault” to include various types of conduct, intentional or otherwise, that proximately cause damage.

Purpose of MCL § 600.6304 – Judgment entry; several liability and reallocation

The legislative intent behind this section of the Michigan Compiled Laws is to fundamentally alter how financial responsibility is apportioned in tort cases involving multiple at-fault parties. Prior to such tort reform measures, Michigan generally followed a system of “joint and several liability,” which allowed a plaintiff to collect the full amount of damages from any single responsible defendant, even if that defendant was only partially at fault. This often meant a financially solvent defendant might bear the entire burden of damages, even if other, less solvent tortfeasors contributed significantly to the harm.

The enactment of MCL § 600.6304 aimed to rectify this perceived unfairness by largely establishing a system of “several liability.” This system ensures that each defendant is generally only obligated to pay damages in proportion to their own assigned percentage of fault. By doing so, the statute promotes individual accountability, aligning financial liability more directly with the degree of blameworthiness. It addresses the problem of “deep pocket” defendants being unfairly burdened with the entire judgment when other responsible parties are unable to pay. The specific exceptions for medical malpractice claims reflect a legislative balancing act, acknowledging unique considerations within that litigation area while generally upholding the principle of proportionate fault.

Real-World Example of MCL § 600.6304 – Judgment entry; several liability and reallocation

Consider a scenario where a pedestrian, Sarah, is injured while crossing the street. A car, driven by David, collides with her. Investigations reveal that David was partially at fault for speeding, but Sarah was also partially at fault for crossing outside a designated crosswalk while distracted by her phone. Additionally, the city where the accident occurred, a non-party, may have contributed to the accident by failing to properly maintain a traffic signal that was malfunctioning nearby. Sarah incurs $200,000 in damages.

Under MCL § 600.6304, a jury would be tasked with determining several key findings:
1. Total Damages: The jury determines Sarah’s total damages are $200,000.
2. Fault Allocation: The jury then assigns percentages of fault to all contributing parties. Let’s say:
* David (driver): 60% at fault for speeding.
* Sarah (plaintiff): 20% at fault for distracted walking and jaywalking.
* The City (non-party): 20% at fault for the malfunctioning traffic signal.
3. Damage Award: Because Sarah was 20% at fault, her total damages of $200,000 are reduced by 20% ($40,000), leaving $160,000 recoverable.
4. Judgment Entry (Several Liability): David would be ordered to pay 60% of the recoverable damages ($160,000 * 0.60 = $96,000). The City, as a non-party who contributed to the fault, is factored into the calculation to reduce David’s share, but no judgment is entered against the City if it’s not a named defendant. David is generally not responsible for the portion of damages attributable to Sarah’s own fault or the City’s fault.

If this were *not* a medical malpractice case, and David could only pay $50,000 of his $96,000 obligation, Sarah would typically bear the loss of the remaining $46,000 from David. She would not generally be able to collect that uncollectible amount from another solvent party, because liability is several, not joint. This example illustrates how the statute ensures each party’s financial responsibility is largely confined to their own proportionate share of fault.

MCL § 600.6304 operates within a broader framework of Michigan tort law. Several other statutes are directly related or frequently referenced alongside it:

  • MCL § 600.2956 – Abolition of joint liability: This statute generally abolishes joint and several liability in actions for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, and establishes several liability, meaning each tortfeasor is liable only for the amount of damages allocated to that tortfeasor. MCL § 600.6304 provides the procedural mechanism for implementing this principle by requiring fault allocation.
  • MCL § 600.2957 – Damages; determination of percentage of fault; reduction of damages: This section outlines how the trier of fact determines percentages of fault and how a plaintiff’s damages are reduced by their own comparative fault, a concept central to the calculations required by MCL § 600.6304.
  • MCL § 600.6303 – Personal injury action; contributory fault of plaintiff not bar to recovery; reduction of damages: This statute reiterates that a plaintiff’s contributory fault does not bar recovery unless their fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the defendants, and requires the reduction of damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. This reduction is directly incorporated into the judgment determination under MCL § 600.6304(3).
  • MCL § 600.2925d – Effect of release or covenant not to sue: This section details how a release or covenant not to sue one tortfeasor affects the liability of others. It is referenced in MCL § 600.6304(1)(b) as fault is allocated to “each person released from liability under section 2925d.”
  • MCL § 600.1483 – Medical malpractice damages; limitations: Directly referenced in MCL § 600.6304(5), this statute sets caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, which can reduce the final award.
  • MCL § 600.5838a – Medical malpractice claim; limitation of actions; tolling: Referenced in MCL § 600.6304(6), this statute relates to medical malpractice claims against specific types of defendants or entities, affecting how joint and several liability exceptions apply.
  • MCL § 600.6312 – Medical malpractice actions; joint and several liability: This statute specifically outlines circumstances where joint and several liability applies in medical malpractice actions, serving as an important exception to the general rule of several liability established in MCL § 600.6304(4).

Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.6304 – Judgment entry; several liability and reallocation

Several Michigan appellate court decisions have provided important interpretations and applications of MCL § 600.6304 since its enactment as part of Michigan’s tort reform efforts:

  • Vining v. City of Detroit, 244 Mich App 245 (2001): This case is significant for its discussion of the allocation of fault to non-parties under MCL § 600.6304(1)(b). The court held that the statute requires the trier of fact to determine the percentage of fault of *all* persons who contributed to the injury, including non-parties, even if they were never named in the lawsuit or were immune from liability. This ensures that the named defendants’ liability is appropriately limited to their proportionate share.
  • Stanton v. Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611 (2002): The Michigan Supreme Court in this case addressed the definition of “fault” as used in MCL § 600.6304(8) and its application to governmental agencies under subsection (7). The Court clarified that “fault” is broadly defined and includes various forms of conduct, including intentional conduct. It also explained the protections afforded to governmental agencies regarding the reallocation of uncollectible amounts.
  • Romeo v. Gov. of Mich., 298 Mich App 437 (2012): This case provides insight into the application of subsection (6) concerning medical malpractice claims and the reallocation of uncollectible amounts. It underscores the unique rules for joint and several liability and reallocation in the context of medical malpractice, particularly when a plaintiff is found to have some comparative fault. The court emphasized the procedural aspects of making a motion for reallocation within the statutory timeframe.

Why MCL § 600.6304 – Judgment entry; several liability and reallocation Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Michigan’s MCL § 600.6304 is a cornerstone of modern personal injury litigation in the state, fundamentally shaping strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants. Its impact on how damages are awarded, particularly through the implementation of several liability, cannot be overstated.

For plaintiffs, this statute means that merely proving a defendant’s fault is not enough; they must also carefully assess each defendant’s solvency. Under the general rule of several liability, if one defendant is 50% at fault but has no assets, the plaintiff generally cannot recover that 50% from another solvent defendant who was only 20% at fault. This shifts the risk of uncollectible judgments from solvent co-defendants to the plaintiff. Therefore, attorneys representing injured parties must conduct thorough investigations into all potential at-fault parties, including non-parties, and critically evaluate their ability to pay any judgment. Settlement negotiations are profoundly affected, as the “deep pocket” strategy of yesteryear is largely diminished.

From a defendant’s perspective, MCL § 600.6304 is largely protective. It ensures that, in most tort cases, a defendant will only be held financially responsible for their proportionate share of fault, rather than potentially bearing the entire burden for injuries caused by others. This incentivizes defendants to vigorously argue for a lower percentage of fault attributed to them and to identify other potentially at-fault parties (even those not formally sued) whose fault can dilute their own percentage. Defense attorneys will often assert “non-party at fault” defenses to minimize their client’s exposure.

The medical malpractice exceptions outlined in subsection (6) are critical. If a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case is found to be without fault, defendants remain jointly and severally liable. This provides a significant advantage for blameless medical malpractice plaintiffs. However, if the medical malpractice plaintiff has *some* fault, the complex reallocation process for uncollectible amounts comes into play, adding layers of strategy and potential post-judgment litigation.

In essence, MCL § 600.6304 mandates a detailed apportionment of fault among *all* contributors to an injury, making the calculation of fault percentages central to every multi-party personal injury case. It compels attorneys to focus not just on *who* caused the harm, but *how much* each party contributed, and how financially viable each contributor is. This makes understanding and strategically applying this statute absolutely crucial for anyone involved in Michigan personal injury law.

Scroll to Top