Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Product Defects

Personal Injury Cases in the News:

 

Product Defects

 

     On February 3, 2013 The Fresno Bee reported that a California resident was awarded $1,000,000.00 in the settlement of his personal injury case. His arm was crushed while he was working in a watermelon processing plant, forcing him to undergo several surgeries. While his condition is stable, it is likely that he will never be able to do labor again.

 

     In Michigan, there are certain laws that protect workers on the clock and those at home from potentially harmful products. It’s called product liability, as governed by MCL 600.2946. In such cases, one must be able to prove a few things, as outlined by Edward M. Swartz in “Proof of Product Defect“:

 

     “The plaintiff’s case rests on three issues of fact: whether there is (1) a defect, (2) a proximate cause, and (3) damages. The plaintiff’s use of the product may not be a separate issue, only evidence that a defect or proximate cause was not present.

***

     A defect need not be only a broken part. The concept includes: improper design, improper choice of materials or components, failure to use safety devices, inadequate warnings, inadequate instructions, improper assembly and manufacture, and inadequate advertising and marketing. A defect may exist in any phase of production which may affect safety, including manufacture, assembly, design, materials, selection of component parts, inspection, packaging, instructions, warnings, promotion, certification, and testing.”

 

If you or a loved one have been injured by a potentially defective product, call Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group today for no-cost consultation.

 

[Guy Vining, a personal injury attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Dog Bite Cases

Personal Injury Cases in the News

Dog Bite Cases

 

     The old adage is wrong. It used to be said that every dog is entitled to one bite. In other words, no liability unless the owner knows of a dangerous propensity. However, that is not what the statute says. It provides for almost strict liability at MCL 287.351, which states:

 

“Sec. 1.(1) If a dog bites a person, without provocations while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.

 

Sec. 1.(2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner’s property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or if the person is on the owner’s property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.”

 

     If you or a loved one have suffered an injury from a dog, or other animal, you may have a remedy in court for monetary compensation. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC has represented a dozen or more victims of animal attacks with settlements ranging from $15,000 to more than $300,000. Please feel free to call Guy Vining for a free and confidential appointment to discuss your rights.

 

[Guy Vining practices personal injury law from his Metro-Detroit office in Taylor, Michigan. He has represented clients in personal injury actions for over 25 years in such areas as: car, boat, motorcycle, and truck accidents; slip, trip, and falls including black ice and defective design; medical and dental malpractice, denial of insurance benefits for wages, medical and home assistance to automobile accident victims.]

Employment Cases in the News

Employment Cases in the News

 

     The Statesman Journal (Oregon) recently reported that a government employee filed a claim for public policy discharge against her employer. In Michigan a discharge against public policy is an exception to the employment at will rule. Generally, an employee, not in a union, or not protected by a written contract has no protection against non-discriminatory discharges.

 

     However, in Michigan even such an at-will employee may not be terminated for the employer’s violation of a public policy. For an example, an employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law. Such a case was Trombetta v. Detroit, T&IR, Co., 81 Mich App 489 (1979). In fact, it expressly affirmed the following principal:

 

“Such a cause of action has been found to be implied where the alleged reason for the discharge of the employee was failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment. Thus, in [citation omitted], the Court said that it would be impermissible to discharge an employee for refusing to falsify pollution control reports that were required to be filed with the state.”

***

“This court has recognized exceptions to the well established rule that at-will employment contracts are terminable at any time for any reason by either party. These exceptions were created to present individuals from contravening the public policy of this state. It is without question that the public policy of this state does not condone attempts to violate its duly enacted laws.”

 

     If you or a loved one have been fired for refusing to follow an illegal order at work, call Guy Vining.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Dog Bite Cases

Personal Injury Cases in the News:

Dog Bite Cases

 

     A good discussion of the law of dog bite cases is found in Hill v. Sacks, 256 Mich App 443 (2003). In that case, Plaintiff’s young child was awarded a judgment by a jury in Monroe County, Michigan. This judgment was reviewed by and affirmed (agreed to) by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

 

     The case was brought pursuant to the so-called dog bite statute, MCL 287.351. The Court of Appeals noted that the statute creates almost absolute liability against the owner of a dog for a bite unless the owner can establish “provocation.” Where the animal is not provoked the owner may not successfully argue that the injured person was partly to blame or what judges call comparative fault. In other words — unless there is provocation the victim’s comparative fault will not count as damages. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied the owner’s appeal and held:

 

“Similarly, we conclude that the dog-bite statute does not allow for consideration of any comparative negligence on the part of the dog-bite victim, excluding possibly where the negligence may relate to the defense of provocation. The dog-bite statute by its clear and unequivocal language does not allow consideration of any negligence or fault, as that term is generally used, on the part of the owner of the dog. If the other considerations contained in the dog-bite statute are satisfied, there i no liability where provocation exists, and there is liability where provocation is lacking.” Bradacs, supra at 267.

If you or a loved one have suffered an injury from a dog, or other animal, you may have a remedy in court for monetary compensation. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC has represented a dozen or more victims of animal attacks with settlements ranging from $15,000 to more than $300,000. Please feel free to call Guy Vining for a free and confidential appointment to discuss your rights.

[Guy Vining practices personal injury law from his Metro-Detroit office in Taylor, Michigan. He has represented clients in personal injury actions for over 25 years in such areas as: car, boat, motorcycle, and truck accidents; slip, trip, and falls including black ice and defective design; medical and dental malpractice, denial of insurance benefits for wages, medical and home assistance to automobile accident victims.]

Business Cases in the News: Shareholder Oppression

Business Cases in the News:

 

Shareholder Oppression  

 

     In the recent (unpublished) case of Berger v. Katz, Case No.: 293880 the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court of Michigan, affirmed (agreed with) significant relief afforded to the minority shareholder. In doing so the Court of Appeals swept aside the argument of the Defendants that the minority shareholders were not entitled to relief under MCL 450.1489 because all of their decisions and conduct was authorized by the bylaws.  The Court of Appeals noted that even authorized and legal decisions could still be oppressive to the minority shareholders.

 

     In reaching their decision, the Court of Appeals looked at the statutory language:

 

MCL 450.1489 provides, in relevant part:

 

(1) A shareholder may bring an action in the circuit court of the county in which the principal place of business or registered office of the corporation is located to establish that the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are illegal, fraudulent, or willfully unfair and oppressive to the corporation or to the shareholder…

*****

(3) As used in this section, “willfully unfair and oppressive conduct” means a continuing course of conduct or a significant action or series of actions that substantially interferes with the interest of the shareholder as a shareholder. Willfully unfair and oppressive conduct may include the termination of employment or limitation on employment benefits to the extent that the actions interfere with distributions or other shareholder interests disproportionately as to the affected shareholder. The term does not include conduct or actions that are permitted by an agreement, the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, or a consistently applied written corporate policy or procedure.

 

     If you or a loved one are a victim of oppressive conduct, call Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, for a discrete and no charge consultation. Elements of oppressive conduct found by various courts include: being denied notices, changes in bylaws and articles of incorporation, insider contracts, salary elimination, termination of employment, issuing stock without need the corporation, significant pay and benefit increases to those in control of the corporation and denying the minority shareholders a voice in management.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented shareholders in stock court actions including the Court of Appeals. All initial consultations are confidential and without charge. Please feel free to call.

Personal Injury Cases in the News

Personal Injury Cases in the News

 

     The Chicago Tribune on February 7, 2013 reported that a family of a man who died after a surgery filed suit. Specifically, the man under went surgery to repair a hernia and died 6 days later. The lawsuit alleges that the surgeon and the hospital were negligent in failing to properly monitor his condition and treat severe colon inflammation, thus creating a personal injury.

 

     In Michigan, medical negligence, a form of personal injury, cases are referred to as medical malpractice. Such suits allege that the medical professionals and institutions failed to do something that are outside of the standard of care under the circumstances of the case. Medical malpractice cases must be carefully investigated and promptly filed. The statute of limitations for such cases is only two years.

 

     If you or a loved on have a question about medical, dental, or other professional malpractice, just call Guy Vining. Guy Vining is a personal injury attorney who serves Metro-Detroit and the Downriver communities of Rockwood, Brownstown, Woodhaven, Grosse Ile, Gibraltar, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Wyandotte, Lincoln Park, Allen Park, Dearborn, Ecorse, Taylor, and Romulus. All initial consultations are free of charge and representation is on a contingency fee basis so that you will not have to pay attorney fees out of pocket.

 

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Business Cases in the News: Shareholder Oppression

Business Cases in the News:

 Shareholder Oppression

 

     In an unpublished opinion last year in Berger v. Katz, Case No.: 291663, the Michigan Court of Appeals sent a strong message to the business community that it would liberally enforce the provisions of MCL 450.1489. That statute gives a remedy to minority shareholders who have suffered  shareholder oppression at the hands of the majority shareholders.

 

     In Berger, the Court of Appeals found evidence that Defendants stopped making payments to Plaintiff, no longer sought his input on corporation matters and substantially increased their salaries at his expense was sufficient to support a claim, for among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. In that regard the Court held:

 

     “Majority Shareholders in a corporation owe “the utmost good faith in its control and management as to the minority and it is the essence of this trust that it must be so managed so as to produce to each shareholder, the best possible return upon his investment.” Salvador v. Connor, 87 Mich App 664, 675; 276 NW2d 458 (1978), quoting 6 Callaghan’s Michigan Civil Jurisprudence (2d ed), §166, p 365. Where the evidence shows that majority shareholders improperly diverted corporate funds, a breach of fiduciary duty of the majority shareholders can be found. Salvador, 87 Mich App at 675-677.”

 

     If you or a loved one are involved in a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) and need assistance, just call Guy Vining. Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, has assisted many minority shareholders in cases involving oppressive conduct of the majority shareholders. Your initial meeting will be without any charges and strictly confidential. Many of these cases can be prosecuted on a contingency fee basis so that you will not pay an attorney fee unless there is a favorable financial outcome.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Personal Injury Cases in the News: Bus Crash Lawsuit

Personal Injury Cases in the News:

 

Bus Crash Lawsuit

 

     Operators of public transportation, such as buses, owe special duties of care to their passengers. The Tacoma News-Tribune reported on January 6, 2013 that several victims of a fatal bus crash filed a lawsuit against the bus company for personal injuries. In the suit, the Plaintiff say the bus driver was traveling too fast on roads which were covered by snow and ice and overly fatigued from driving far too many hours the preceding week.

 

     Public transportation companies are responsible for the wrongful acts and omissions of their employees, and any personal injuries that may fall on their passengers from events like sudden stops or a bus crash. Members of the public have a right to be transported safely when the fee for transportation is paid.

 

[Guy Vining, a personal injury attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News:

 

     On February 5, 2013 the 6th Circuit Court issued an interesting opinion concerning creditors’ rights after mortgage foreclosures in In re: Richard K. Miller, No.: 11-2357 (unpublished). The question before the court was whether the Bank’s credit bid at a Michigan Sheriff’s sale (after foreclosure by advertisement) extinguished the debtor’s debt to the bank. The bankruptcy court determined that it did and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed/agreed with that decision.

 

     After the bank foreclosed against the the debtor’s home it bid the full amount of it’s mortgage at the sheriff’s sale and acquired the title, subject to debtor’s rights of redemption. When debtor did not redeem the  bank subsequently sold the home for less than the amount debtor owed and then claimed the difference against the debtor. The court would not allow this action based upon Michigan cases. Specifically holding:

 

     In Bank of Three Oaks v. Lakefront Properties, 444 N.W. 2d 217, 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)(per curiam), the mortgagee bank bid $147,129.42, constituting the full amount of the debt plus the cost of foreclosure and statutory attorney’s fees, at the foreclosure sale following a Michigan foreclosure by advertisement. When the sheriff’s deed became operative at the conclusion of the redemption period, the bank became the titled owner of the property. Thereafter, the bank sold the property for $150,000.00. The bank filed suit against the mortgagors to collect an alleged deficiency for the interest, taxes, and insurance premiums accrued between the date of the foreclosure sale and the date the redemption period expired. Id. at 554-55. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that “[w]hen property is purchased at a foreclosure sale for an amount equal to the amount due on the mortgage, the debt is satisfied.” Id. at 555 (citing Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Hebb, 287 N.W. 796 (Mich. 1939), and Powers. v. Golden Lumber Co., 5 N.W. 656, 657 (Mich. 1880)). Because the debt was extinguished at the foreclosure sale, the court held that the bank could not pursue any deficiency where the mortgagor did not redeem the property. Id. at 556-557.

 

     The same legal principals have been applied in other Michigan cases. See Smith v. Gen. Mortg. Corp., 261 N.W. 2d 710, 712-13 (Mich. 1978)(per curiam); Kennedy v. Brown, 15 N.W. 498, 499-500 (Mich. 1883); New Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Globe Mortg. Corp., 761 N.W. 2d 832, 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008); Emmons v. Lake States Ins. Co., 484 N.W. 2d 712, 714 (Mich. Ct. App. July 1, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). Similarly, the Second Circuit applied Michigan law in Chrysler Capital Reality, Inc. v. Grella, 942 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1991), to hold that a mortgagee who successfully bid the entire amount of the debt at a foreclosure sale could not thereafter maintain an action for damages against the mortgagor, despite the mortgagee’s allegations that the actual value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale was far less than the debt and that the mortgagee had been fraudulently induced into making the transaction.

 

     If you or a loved one have questions concerning your rights or obligations with creditors you should immediately seek a qualified bankruptcy attorney.

 

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Business Cases in the News: Minority Shareholder Oppression

Business Cases in the News:

 

Minority Shareholder Oppression

 

     In our blogs we have on occasion discussed cases of minority shareholder oppression. Recently, in writing a brief to be filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court, on the issue of the proper valuation standard, Guy Vining ran across the following quote from the William Mitchell Law Review in 1996:

 

     “Close corporations typically are formed by friends, relatives, or other business associates who choose to combine their capital, skills, labor and experience in a new business. Shareholders in a close corporation generally plan to be employed by the corporation and to have an active role in management. As a result, shareholders usually expect to receive a salary, bonus and additional benefits consistent with their roles as employees, officers, and directors.

 

      While those corporations begin as friendly ventures, the balance of power in the close corporation often lends itself to oppression of those shareholders who do not control the corporation and usually own only a small percentage of shares — the minority shareholders. Minority shareholders may be subjected to a “freeze out,” (sometimes known as a “squeeze out”) by the majority shareholders. Typical “freeze out” techniques include terminating the minority shareholder’s employment with the corporation or terminating dividends and the minority shareholder’s returns on his or her investment.

 

      Although minority shareholders in any corporation are in a difficult position due to their lack of control, minority shareholders in closely held corporations have uniquely difficult positions because their shares are not readily marketable. In other words, when minority shareholders in a large, publicly-traded corporation become dissatisfied with corporate operations, they can “vote with their feet” — sell their shares and discontinue their involvement with the corporation. Minority shareholders in the closely held corporation, on the other hand, often cannot easily sell their shares.

 

      The lack of a market for close corporation shares owned by a minority shareholder means that a non-controlling investor may be locked into a business that is providing little return on investment, or at least is failing to fulfill the owner’s non-monetary expectation. Left without a meaningful return on his or her investment, the minority shareholder may have little choice but to sell for less than a fair price, usually to the majority shareholders.”

 

The above is a succinct summary of the problems encountered by minority shareholders in such small corporations. As the author notes many times, what starts as a friendly venture turns very ugly when the money starts rolling in.

 

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, would be happy to perform a no charge analysis of your case if you find yourself in such a situation. You may be entitled to significant relief from shareholder oppression under MCL 450.1489. Under this statute a judge is empowered to examine the circumstances and afford relief, such as advising the Defendants to buy your interest out at “fair value,” consistent with equity.

 

Guy Vining has practiced business law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He serves the Metro-Detroit and Downriver communities, including Rockwood,  Gibraltar, Brownstown, Woodhaven, Grosse Ile, Trenton, Riverview, Romulus, Wyandotte, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Alan Park, Dearborn, and Dearborn Heights.