In a travesty of justice, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 25 that the discovery rule is no longer applicable to wrongful death actions--even if it was impossible to bring the suit within three years of the death. The Court reversed decades of precedent in Trentadue v Gorton, a case that arose from the tragic and brutal murder/rape of a woman in Flint in 1986. The killer was able to evade authorities until 2002, when DNA evidence finally linked him to the crime.
Within 6 months of learning the identity of the killer (he worked for a lawn sprinkler company that was servicing the property on which the victim lived), the victim's daughter filed a wrongful death action against the lawn sprinkler company and her former landlord [note: The sprinkler company was owned by the murderer's parents and they knew he had been convicted of assaulting women. The victim had also asked her landlord to provide better security on the premises where she lived]. Even though there was no way for the victim's daughter to know who her mother's killer was until the police connected the DNA evidence to the murderer in 2002, according to the Supreme Court, she is barred from bringing an action by the statute of limitations.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Why do you say that it was impossible for Dr. Eby's family to discover the identity of her killer within the 3-year limitations period? Why did they simply rely solely upon the police (who apparently held the mistaken belief that the killer was someone known to her) instead of hiring an investigator to pursue other leads, such as checking with the landlord to determine who had access to her residence? Had that been done, the killer would have likely been found if the landlord was truthful or the family could have relied upon fraudulent concealment to bring a belated suit if the landlord or the sprinkler company lied.
Consistent with what I wrote in the amicus reply brief for M.E.G.A., the Supreme Court majority quite properly recognized the respective roles of the judiciary and legislature under the Michigan constitution, and relied on the plain language of the venerable statute to reach its decision.
I fully agree with this statement on on p. 30: "Statutes lose their meaning if 'an aggrieved party need only convince a judge to rewrite the statute under the name of equity.' Significantly, such unrestrained use of equity also undermines consistency and predictability for plaintiffs and defendants alike."
Now, the Legislature can determine under what circumstances there should be a "discovery rule," and the courts must then enforce it as written.
The very suggestion that family members of a murder victim have a duty above and beyond that of the government to seek and find the murderer is patently absurd.
This is precisely why Taylor and his Gang of Four don't get it -- the law is supposed to serve the citizens of Michigan. The prior commenter perverts the law, as does the Gang of Four, by invoking an absurd set of hypothetical facts to support an outcome that no rational mind could conceivably support.
That's the fallacy of textualism, and why it is so attractive to those that wish to alter time-honored precedents to accommodate their own personal, political views.
Post a Comment