Tucker v. Sandlin

14 Citing cases

  1. Krass v. Tri-County Security, Inc.

    233 Mich. App. 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 57 times
    Discussing negligence, and its included concept of duty, in the context of a failure to protect someone from a third party's criminal acts

    See Roberts v. Pinkins, 171 Mich. App. 648, 654; 430 N.W.2d 808 (1988) (although the foreseeability of certain criminal acts by third persons has created a legal duty to some persons even absent a recognized special relationship, the use of the building in question by the plaintiff's attacker was not foreseeable). Contrast Tucker v. Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 705; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983) (security guard in question (1) had actual notice of a life-threatening assault that apparently preceded the assault on the plaintiff, (2) promised the victim of the first assault that he would "take care" of the task of informing police of the assailant's presence, thereby undertaking a duty to all users of the ramp that he would do so and (3) failed to immediately notify police, an omission that expert testimony indicated was a breach of the standard of care applicable to a security guard). We do recognize, however, that in plaintiff's reply brief, he appeared to assert a claim of negligence against Tri-County, stating that, "In the instant case, Plaintiff both pled and produced facts to the trial court which established security guard negligence by failing to remain visible, being derelict and defacto abandoning the guard's post in the parking lot, all in breach of the contract between the security guard company and the merchant."

  2. Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc.

    26 Cal.App.4th 1225 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that the partial relief lifted the automatic stay and allowed the state court to conduct a jury trial; however, the partial relief limited recovery to available insurance proceeds, and allowed the plaintiffs to file claims in bankruptcy proceedings to permit the creditor to obtain any money that is available from the bankruptcy estate to satisfy the judgment against the debtor that is not covered by insurance

    Authorities from other jurisdictions also support our conclusion that where security guards fail to deter criminal activity, the issue of causation is to be resolved by the trier of fact. In Tucker v. Sandlin (1983) 126 Mich. App. 701 [ 337 N.W.2d 637], when a security guard discovered an assault in the student parking structure, he told the victim he would "`take care'" of informing the police. However, the guard failed to immediately notify the police, and the plaintiff was also assaulted in the parking structure.

  3. Douglas v. Elba, Inc.

    184 Mich. App. 160 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 6 times

    We also reject plaintiff's claim that her allegations support a common-law duty owed to plaintiff by defendant Jabar. See Roberts v Pinkins, 171 Mich. App. 648, 655; 430 N.W.2d 808 (1988); Tucker v Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 704-705; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983), lv den 419 Mich. 859 (1984) (citing 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 324A, p 142). Affirmed.

  4. Roberts v. Pinkins

    171 Mich. App. 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 17 times

    Plaintiff also contends that defendants voluntarily assumed responsibility to secure the building from those who might enter for unlawful gains (by temporarily hiring a guard dog service and by purchasing a door for the building) and, therefore, had a duty to do so in a nonnegligent manner. See Tucker v Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 704-705; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983) (citing 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 324A, p 142), lv den 419 Mich. 859 (1984). That rule has no application herein since there were no allegations that (1) defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm, (2) defendants undertook to perform a duty owed by another to plaintiff, or (3) plaintiff suffered harm because of her reliance on defendants' assumption of the responsibility to secure the building.

  5. Noble v. McNerney

    165 Mich. App. 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a probate court is empowered to effect an equitable remedy

    Since the evidence was such that reasonable minds could differ, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was properly denied. Tucker v Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 704; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983), lv den 419 Mich. 859 (1984). Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

  6. Sponkowski v. Ingham Road Comm

    152 Mich. App. 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 20 times
    In Sponkowski, the Michigan Court of Appeals applied the voluntary assumption of duty doctrine to a driver who agreed to lead the way for others.

    However, where a person voluntarily assumes the performance of a duty (e.g., to lead another motor vehicle to an unfamiliar destination), he is required to perform it carefully, not omitting to do what an ordinarily prudent person would do in accomplishing the task. Tucker v Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 705; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983); Smith v Allendale Mutual Ins Co, 410 Mich. 685, 718; 303 N.W.2d 702 (1981); Wolf v City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 568; 384 N.Y.S.2d 758; 349 N.E.2d 858, 860 (1976). Michigan law imposes on all motorists a general duty to operate their vehicles in a reasonably prudent manner.

  7. Granger v. Fruehauf Corp.

    147 Mich. App. 190 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant was therefore not prejudiced by the hypothetical question and we decline to reverse on this point. Tucker v Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 706-707; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983), lv den 419 Mich. 859 (1984). Defendant's final argument involves the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for new trial on the basis that references were made during trial to plaintiff's recovery of workers' compensation.

  8. Kovacs v. C Co.

    134 Mich. App. 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 21 times

    We thus consider only that hearsay objection properly preserved for appellate review. Tucker v Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 706; 337 N.W.2d 637 (1983). Prior to the introduction of Klinger's testimony at trial, Daniel Tibbits testified that he was a senior supervisor of payroll and benefit records at Oldsmobile, decedent's former employer.

  9. Martin v. Joseph Harris Co., Inc.

    767 F.2d 296 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 38 times
    Finding a similar exclusion of consequential damages in a commercial context unconscionable under Michigan law

    Lewis Refrigeration Co. v. Sawyer Fruit Vegetable and Cold Storage Co., 709 F.2d 427, 430 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, the standard used by the district court accurately reflects Michigan law. See, e.g., Tucker v. Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 704, 337 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1983). The district court also stated that "I suspect it was the advocacy skill of defendant's counsel that convinced the jury that plaintiffs sustained no damages."

  10. T.M. v. Detroit Pub. Sch.

    Case Number 15-14406 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 26, 2016)

    The plaintiff has advanced ample evidence from which the Court could conclude as a matter of law that defendant Morning expressly was charged with a duty to keep student R. and T.M. separated, and that he knew that a physical altercation likely would result if the students were put together. The plaintiff testified that she heard Principal Lockhart tell Morning that T.M. would not be riding the bus and should have no contact with R. to prevent any further attacks by R. Michigan courts have held that a defendant may be liable for negligence where he knew that an assault was likely to occur or in progress, assumed a duty to prevent it or at least notify authorities of the danger, and yet stood by and did nothing while the attack proceeded. See, e.g., Tucker v. Sandlin, 126 Mich. App. 701, 705-06, 337 N.W.2d 637, 640 (1983). In that case the court explained: