Ken Galica, a partner in our Livonia office, recently represented a Michigan fire department and its Captain and won the case on summary disposition.    

 

On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff’s decedent was found unresponsive in the bathroom, suffering from what appeared to be respiratory problems. The Plaintiff, the sister of the decedent and personal representative of the decedent’s estate, called 911 regarding a medical emergency. The fire department personnel responded and placed the decedent on the floor in the kitchen.

 

Upon arrival of the fire department’s responding paramedics, medical equipment belonging to the medical center was brought into the household. The paramedics then began administering medical attention to the decedent. In the course of administering medical attention, the heavy gurney dislodged and fell from its upright position in a downward direction. The weight of the gurney fell across the decedent’s face and struck him causing facial damage, lacerations and disfigurement to his facial extremity. The Plaintiff decedent was subsequently pronounced dead upon admission to the medical center. The autopsy report concluded that the decedent died of aspiration of gastric content due to muscular dystrophy. The report further concluded, “Superficial injury is present on the face however, it is not contributing to his death. The manner of death is natural.” 

 

The Plaintiff, as the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, brought action against the City’s fire department and its Captain. The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims of gross negligence and negligence. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges vicariously ability claim against the City’s fire department.

 

Working with Mr. Galica, Joseph Nimako, an attorney in our Livonia office, drafted the motion for this case. In the motion, the following reasons were stated as to why summary disposition should be granted:

 

· The City’s fire department must be dismissed because it is not a proper party. It is well settled that a municipal department has no legal existence independent of the municipality and, therefore, is not a suable entity.

· Even if the City had been named as a defendant, the Plaintiff’s negligence claims would be barred by governmental immunity. The City is a governmental agency and is, therefore, immune from tort liability.

· The City and the City’s fire department cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged tortuous acts of its officers or employees.

· The fire department’s Captain is immune from liability because his conduct did not amount to gross negligence. The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges negligence and gross negligence claims against the Captain. As an employee or officer of a governmental agency, the Captain is entitled to governmental immunity.

· The Plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred by governmental immunity.

· Lastly, the Plaintiff failed to state and/or establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

 

At oral argument on the case, Mr. Galica presented these positions to the Court, which adopted them in their entirety.  Congratulations to Mr. Galica and Mr. Nimako on winning this case for our clients.