Speaker Law
Blog

In a travesty of justice, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 25 that the discovery rule is no longer applicable to wrongful death actions--even if it was impossible to bring the suit within three years of the death.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.

Labels: discovery, DNA, Flint, Michigan, Wrongful Death

---

Coincidentally after posting about Barnes v Jeudevine last night, I learned this morning that the Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion on another paternity case: Sutton v. Diane. I would not be surprised if this case is appealed to both the Michigan Supreme Court and then to the United States Supreme Court because it raises issues of equal protection and due process when suit was filed on behalf of a minor child to learn the identity of the child's father so as to access medical history and other information about the child's biological father. The COA said that the child did not have standing to commence the paternity action. Although DNA tests revealed that the mother's husband was not the child's biological father, the COA held that "we are not prepared at this time to find constitutionally protected interests under the facts presented, such that this 'paternity' action may proceed."

Labels: biological father, DNA, paternity

---