Governmental Immunity Can be Overcome
A dairy inspector from the Michigan Department of Agriculture conducted an inspection at a family dairy farm in Dundee and identified a protein buildup which needed to be cleaned inside the farm’s 1,500-gallon bulk milk tank. Despite admitting unfamiliarity with a specific cleaner called “Cold War,” the Inspector stated the chemical cleaner could work for the task of cleaning out the tank. Experts later testified Cold War was a cleaner designed for automated systems, not manual application. The product’s label carried warnings about severe chemical burns, the dangers of breathing its fumes, and the need for protective equipment and ventilation.
Following the conversation with the Inspector, the farmer decided to clean the tank with Cold War. This required him to enter the tank through an access hatch. He was found unresponsive moments later and eventually died. The medical examiner determined that the farmer died from volatile chemical toxicity.
The family filed suit alleging gross negligence, grossly negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the constitutional right to bodily integrity. Defendant Michigan Department of Agriculture sought summary disposition on the grounds its employee had governmental immunity. The defense argued that there was no duty of reasonable care owed to the Plaintiffs because the risk was not foreseeable given defendants lack of knowledge about the cleaning product. Further, the defense argued that the conduct did not amount to gross negligence.
The Trial Court granted summary disposition on the constitutional claim as there was no evidence the inspector acted with deliberate indifference towards the Plaintiff. However, the Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss the negligence claims. The Trial Court held that, “[the Inspector] did owe a duty of care under the circumstances presented, and that a genuine issue of material fact exists whether [Inspector] engaged in grossly negligent conduct that was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.”
The Trial Court’s decision was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in a published decision issued on December 26, 2024. When an individual assumes a common-law duty to act with reasonable care, governmental immunity cannot be used as a shield to summarily dismiss a case.
Read entire case at:
Estate of Sieler v State of Michigan Dept. of Ag
About Alexander & Angelas, P.C.
Attorney Peter A. Angelas represents defendants in civil liability litigation across Michigan and Northern Ohio. His practice areas include insurance defense litigation, premises liability, motor carrier (trucking) defense, corporate and commercial litigation, construction defect litigation, auto negligence, insurance coverage disputes, emergency casualty response services, alternative dispute resolution, subrogation claims, workers’ compensation, employment law, and liquor liability.
Mr. Angelas practices in all state and federal courts in Michigan, including Wayne County (Detroit), Macomb County (Mount Clemens), Oakland County (Pontiac), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Genesee County (Flint). Legal services are also provided in Northern Ohio.
A 24/7 Emergency Hotline is available (800-219-0007) for trucking and insurance company clients. When an accident requires an immediate response to protect evidence, members of the firm quickly launch an investigation with the assistance of well-qualified accident investigators, crash re-constructionists, mechanical engineers, civil evidence photographers, and independent adjusters positioned throughout Michigan and Northern Ohio.
Image by aleksandarlittlewolf on Freepik