The Supreme Court
(SCt.), after granting leave and taking full briefing and arguments in Black v Shafer, (149516), reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals (312379)
and reinstated Wayne County Circuit Order granting Summary Disposition in favor
of the defendant Anthony Shafer. The SCt decided the case on proximate cause,
which was not an issue it asked the parties to address.
The Facts are of
interest. Plaintiff, as Next Friend of 16-year-old Jessica Bitner, sued
Bitner’s boyfriend, Ian Gearhart, after Bitner was accidentally shot in the leg
by Gearhart while they were social guests at Anthony Shafer’s grandparents’
home. Shafer, 30 years old, invited Bitner, Gearhart and friend, Stephanie
Sutton, to come to his grandparent’s home, situated near a lake for an evening
of swimming. Alcohol was supplied by Gearhart and Shafer. The group was
partying in the den, a converted garage. William kept a short barrel shotgun,
loaded with two shells was leaning against the wall. Shafer knew of its
existence and that it was loaded.
Gearhart, who was drinking, became curious about the gun. When
he picked it up, Shafer took it from him, checking to be sure it was unloaded.
With the safety off, he handed it to Gearhart who examined it and then put it
back in the corner. At one point the women went home but, invited back by the
two men, returned. The group drank alcohol and went swimming. Gearhart and
Bitner returned to the den. Bitner saw Gearhart pick up the shotgun. The gun
discharged and Bitner was shot in the leg.
Wayne County Circuit
Court held for defendant, finding that there was no special relationship
between plaintiff and defendant, that the shooting was unforeseeable and that
the defendant didn’t breach the limited duties owed to licensees.
The COA disagreed.
In the majority opinion, the court
reversed the trial court stating that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of
ordinary care as a general matter and because a “special relationship” existed
between the parties. A special relationship was established because Shafer 1)
invited and picked up Bitner, 2) provided her with alcohol he purchased and 3)
allowed the intoxicated Bitner and intoxicated Gearhart into his garage with a
loaded, displayed shotgun with its safety off.
COA Judge Kathleen
Jansen wrote a dissent. Arguing that Bitner, a social guest of Shafer, was
a licensee and, as such, was entitled to expect that she be informed of any
dangerous condition such as the shotgun. Because, she opined, the gun was in
plain sight, the danger was readily apparent. Judge Jansen went on to argue
that since Bitner, a minor, was illegally consuming alcohol, no special
relationship existed between the parties and thus there was no duty to protect
by Shafer.
I disagree with the
Supreme Court decision in this case.
The court said that reasonable minds could not differ that
the shooter was an intervening cause that broke the chain of proximate cause
from the guy who left the shotgun at the party.
I think most definitely it is a fact issue and that reasonable minds
could differ. There was a time gap between the time Gearhart, the shooter,
first handled the gun and when the shooting happened, but it was not days, but
mere hours. And, where there is a loaded
gun at a party where drinking is occurring, it is, in my mind, reasonably
foreseeable that someone will decide to shoot it.
Labels: gun, invitee, michigan supreme court, negligence, premises liability, social guest, Special Relationship, Wayne County
