MCL § 600.6312 – Joint liability for intentional tortfeasors (criminal act exception)

Code Details

Chapter 600

Act 236 of 1961

236-1961-63

Exact Statute Text

MCL § 600.6312 Summary

This Michigan statute outlines specific situations where a defendant, found responsible for causing personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, can be held “jointly and severally liable.” This is a significant exception to Michigan’s general rule of several liability. Under this provision, a defendant faces joint and several liability if their harmful act or omission also constitutes a crime for which they are convicted, and that crime either involved gross negligence or involved the use of alcohol or a controlled substance, specifically referencing a list of Michigan statutes related to impaired driving, military justice, explosives, and other dangerous conduct. This means if the statute applies, the injured party can seek full compensation for their damages from any one of the liable defendants, even if other at-fault parties exist and are unable to pay their share.

Purpose of MCL § 600.6312

The legislative intent behind this particular Michigan statute is to create a strong deterrent against and ensure comprehensive accountability for civil wrongs stemming from certain criminal actions. While Michigan generally operates under a system of several liability, where each defendant is only responsible for their proportionate share of fault, the purpose of this provision is to carve out specific exceptions for severe misconduct. By imposing joint and several liability when a defendant’s harmful act is also a convicted crime involving gross negligence or substance impairment, the law aims to protect victims, guaranteeing they can recover full damages even if other negligent parties are insolvent. It emphasizes public policy against egregious criminal behavior causing civil harm, holding such offenders to a higher standard of financial responsibility.

Real-World Example of MCL § 600.6312

Imagine a scenario where John, driving under the influence of alcohol, causes a severe car accident, injuring Mark and damaging his vehicle. Another driver, Sarah, also contributed slightly to the accident by making an improper lane change, but her fault is minor compared to John’s. John is subsequently convicted of operating while intoxicated (OWI) under MCL 257.625.

Under typical Michigan law, if John were only negligent, he might only be liable for his percentage of fault (e.g., 90%). However, because John’s act (driving while intoxicated) led to a conviction under one of the specified criminal statutes (MCL 257.625), MCL § 600.6312 applies. This means John is jointly and severally liable for Mark’s personal injuries and property damage. If Mark’s total damages are $100,000, he can seek the full $100,000 from John, even if Sarah was found 10% at fault. If John pays the full amount, he might then have the right to seek contribution from Sarah for her 10% share, but Mark’s ability to recover his total damages from John is ensured regardless of Sarah’s financial situation.

Related Statutes

Several Michigan statutes are closely related to or frequently referenced alongside MCL § 600.6312:

• MCL § 600.2956 – Abolition of joint and several liability; exceptions: This is the foundational Michigan statute that generally abolished joint and several liability, establishing the state’s comparative fault system where defendants are typically only severally liable for their own percentage of fault. MCL § 600.6312 serves as one of the key exceptions to this general rule.
• MCL § 600.2957 – Basis for liability; multiple tortfeasors: This statute outlines how liability is determined when there are multiple at-fault parties in a tort action. It works in conjunction with MCL § 600.6312 by first establishing the individual fault percentages, and then MCL § 600.6312 dictates when that individual liability transforms into joint and several liability for specific criminal acts.
• MCL § 600.2957a – Allocation of fault in tort actions: This provision further details the process by which fault is allocated among multiple tortfeasors, including nonparties. The determination of these fault percentages is crucial before the application of MCL § 600.6312 can potentially alter the collection mechanism through joint and several liability.
• MCL § 257.625 – Operating while intoxicated: This is a specific criminal statute referenced directly within MCL § 600.6312(b)(iii). It defines the offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and a conviction under this statute in connection with a civil injury makes the defendant jointly and severally liable. Many of the other criminal statutes listed in MCL § 600.6312, such as those related to military justice, explosives, or environmental protection, are also directly related as their violation can trigger the joint and several liability provision.

Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.6312

Michigan courts have interpreted and applied this specific statute in various personal injury cases. One notable case is Watts v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 256 Mich. App. 724 (2003)&btnG=), where the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of MCL § 600.6312. The court examined the requirements for imposing joint and several liability under this section, particularly focusing on the need for a criminal conviction tied to the act causing injury.

Another case discussing the principles related to this statute is Hickey v. Centurion Medical Products Corp., No. 344933, 2019 WL 5696116 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2019), where the court explored exceptions to several liability and how MCL § 600.6312 fits into the broader framework of Michigan’s tort reform statutes, distinguishing situations where joint and several liability still applies. These cases, among others, help clarify the scope and limitations of this important exception in Michigan personal injury law.

Why MCL § 600.6312 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

The Michigan statute concerning joint and several liability for certain criminal acts holds significant weight in personal injury lawsuits. For plaintiffs and their attorneys, understanding this provision is crucial because it can dramatically impact the ability to recover full compensation. In situations where a defendant’s harmful act (causing personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death) also results in a criminal conviction for gross negligence or an alcohol/controlled substance-related offense, this statute provides a powerful mechanism for victims to collect 100% of their damages from that single, culpable defendant. This is vital when other at-fault parties may be insolvent, uninsured, or difficult to identify, ensuring that the victim is not left without full recovery due to the limitations of several liability.

For defense attorneys and their clients, this law highlights the severe financial consequences that can arise when civil liability is compounded by criminal behavior. A defendant convicted under one of the enumerated statutes faces heightened exposure, potentially being held responsible for the entire judgment, regardless of the comparative fault of others. This acts as a significant deterrent and underscores the importance of avoiding such criminal conduct. For insurance companies, it dictates specific scenarios where their insured’s liability may extend beyond their proportionate share, influencing policy coverage and settlement strategies. In essence, this statute transforms certain civil claims into high-stakes litigation, particularly for those whose actions cross the line from mere negligence into criminal culpability.