Summary
affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C) despite noting that the plaintiff was found not guilty by reason of insanity in a presumably related criminal case
Summary of this case from Masrur v. Regents of the Univ. of Mich.Opinion
Docket No. 158277.
Submitted April 20, 1994, at Grand Rapids.
Decided June 14, 1994; approved for publication September 1, 1994, at 9:05 A.M.
Conybeare Law Office, P.C. (by John C. Johnson), for the plaintiffs.
Cummings, McClorey, Davis Acho, P.C. (by Gail P. Massad), for Berrien County and others.
Kerr, Russell Weber (by Patrick McLain and Joanne G. Swanson), for S. Prasad Sajja.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order of the circuit court granting defendants' motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm.
Although plaintiff Larry J. Lingle was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the shooting death of Robert Tollaksen, the trial court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary disposition. A plaintiff cannot benefit from a cause of action founded upon an immoral or illegal act. Glazier v Lee, 171 Mich. App. 216, 220; 429 N.W.2d 857 (1988); 1A CJS, Actions, § 29, pp 386-387. Accordingly, Larry Lingle's negligence claim arising out of his treatment as an outpatient at Riverwood Community Mental Health Center was barred.
Further, the bystander liability claims of Larry Lingle's parents and sister were properly dismissed. Bystander recovery is limited to immediate family members of the injured third party. Nugent v Bauermeister, 195 Mich. App. 158, 160-161; 489 N.W.2d 148 (1992); DAIIE v McMillan (On Remand), 159 Mich. App. 48; 406 N.W.2d 232 (1987).
Affirmed.