Michigan
Michigan Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 23, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 23, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Michigan imposes strict liability for dog bites under MCL 287.351: an owner is liable for any bite injury when the victim was lawfully present and did not provoke the dog, regardless of whether the dog had ever shown aggression before.
Estimate your claim: Use our free Michigan Dog Bite Settlement Calculator to see a rough settlement range based on the medical bills, the bite location, the victim's age, and Michigan's liability rule.
Overview of Michigan Dog Bite Laws
Michigan holds dog owners to one of the strongest liability standards in the country. Under the state's strict liability statute, a dog owner is responsible for injuries caused by a bite even if the dog has never shown aggression before. Michigan does not follow the "one free bite" rule that some states use.
The two primary statutes governing dog bite liability in Michigan are MCL 287.351 (the Dog Bite Statute) and Act 426 of 1988 (the Dangerous Animals Act, MCL 287.321 through 287.323). Together, these laws establish civil liability rules for dog owners and criminal penalties for owners of dangerous animals.
Michigan's Strict Liability Standard Under MCL 287.351
Michigan's dog bite statute, MCL 287.351, states that if a dog bites a person without provocation while the person is on public property or lawfully on private property (including the property of the dog's owner), the owner is liable for any damages the victim suffers. This applies regardless of the dog's history or the owner's knowledge of prior aggression.

To establish a claim under MCL 287.351, the victim must prove four elements:
- The defendant owned the dog.
- The dog bit the victim.
- The bite happened without provocation.
- The victim was on public property, or lawfully on private property, when the bite occurred.
The victim does not need to show that the owner was careless or that the owner knew the dog was aggressive. This makes Michigan one of the most victim-friendly states for dog bite cases.
Strict Liability Applies Only to Bites
An important limitation of MCL 287.351 is that it covers only bite injuries. If a dog injures someone through other means, such as knocking them down, jumping on them, or causing a fall, the strict liability statute does not apply. In those situations, the victim must prove the owner was negligent or that the owner knew the animal was likely to cause harm.
Governmental Immunity, Not a Statutory K-9 Exception
MCL 287.351 itself contains only two exceptions: provocation, and a victim who gained entry for an unlawful or criminal purpose. It does not mention police or military dogs. Separately, Michigan's Governmental Tort Liability Act (MCL 691.1407) grants broad immunity to governmental agencies and employees performing a governmental function, which can shield a police department or K-9 handler from liability for a bite occurring during lawful police work. That protection comes from general governmental-immunity law, not from a carve-out written into the dog-bite statute itself.
Defenses Available to Dog Owners
Although Michigan imposes strict liability, the statute's liability clause applies only when the bite was unprovoked and the victim was lawfully present. Those two conditions are where most Michigan dog bite cases are actually fought, and an owner who defeats either one defeats the strict liability claim.
Provocation
If the victim provoked the dog before the bite, the owner is not liable under MCL 287.351. Provocation includes teasing, tormenting, hitting, or otherwise antagonizing the dog in a way that would cause a normally calm animal to react. The provocation must be sufficient and direct. Accidentally startling a dog typically does not qualify.
Trespassing
Strict liability does not apply when the victim was trespassing at the time of the bite. A trespasser is someone who enters private property without permission and without a legal right to be there. Postal workers, delivery drivers, utility workers, and invited guests are all considered lawfully present.
Note that this defense may be limited when the trespasser is a young child who does not understand property boundaries.
Comparative Negligence and Dog Bite Claims
Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence system under MCL 600.2959. Under this rule, a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault cannot recover non-economic damages.
However, courts have held that comparative negligence principles generally do not apply inside the strict liability dog bite statute. The statutory defenses of provocation and trespassing are the only recognized exceptions. If neither defense applies, the owner bears full liability for the bite. Comparative negligence may still be relevant in non-bite dog injury claims brought under a negligence theory.
Dog Owner Responsibilities Under Michigan Law
Michigan dog owners must follow several legal requirements designed to protect the public.
- Leash laws: Many Michigan cities and townships require dogs to be on a leash when off the owner's property. Leash requirements vary by municipality, so owners should check their local ordinances.
- Confinement: Dogs must be kept securely confined on the owner's property. Allowing a dog to roam freely can expose the owner to additional liability.
- Rabies vaccination: Michigan law requires dogs to receive rabies vaccinations. Failure to comply can result in fines and strengthen a victim's case.
- Licensing: Most Michigan jurisdictions require dog owners to register and license their dogs with the local clerk or animal control office.
- Dangerous dog requirements: Owners of dogs that have been designated as dangerous face additional obligations, including secure enclosures, muzzling in public, and liability insurance.
Violating any of these requirements can strengthen a victim's legal claim and may result in additional penalties.
The Dangerous Animals Act: MCL 287.321 Through 287.323
Michigan's Dangerous Animals Act (Act 426 of 1988) provides a framework for addressing dogs and other animals that have attacked people or other dogs.
Definition of a Dangerous Animal
Under MCL 287.321, a "dangerous animal" is a dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on its owner's property or under its owner's control.
A dog is not considered dangerous if the person it bit was trespassing, provoked the animal, or if the dog was protecting a person engaged in lawful activity who was being assaulted.
Court Proceedings for Dangerous Animals
Under MCL 287.322, anyone can file a sworn complaint in district court alleging that an animal is dangerous and has caused serious injury or death. The court then issues a summons to the owner to appear and show cause why the animal should not be destroyed.
If the court determines the animal is dangerous, it can order the animal to be destroyed or impose conditions on the owner, including confinement and registration requirements.
Criminal Penalties Under the Dangerous Animals Act
The Dangerous Animals Act imposes significant criminal penalties on owners of animals that injure or kill people:
| Situation | Charge Level | Maximum Prison Sentence | Minimum Fine | Community Service |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dangerous animal causes non-serious injury (after prior adjudication) | Misdemeanor | 90 days | $250 to $500 | 240 hours minimum |
| Dangerous animal causes serious injury | Felony | 4 years | $2,000 | 500 hours minimum |
| Dangerous animal causes death | Involuntary manslaughter | Up to 15 years | Varies | Court discretion |
"Serious injury" under the act means permanent, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function.
Victim Rights and Recoverable Damages
Dog bite victims in Michigan can recover both economic and non-economic damages. Because Michigan uses strict liability for bite cases, victims do not need to prove the owner was at fault to collect compensation.
Economic Damages
Economic damages compensate victims for measurable financial losses:
- Emergency room visits, surgeries, and hospitalization costs
- Ongoing medical treatment and rehabilitation
- Prescription medications
- Lost wages and lost earning capacity
- Future medical expenses
- Property damage (such as damaged clothing or personal items)
Non-Economic Damages
Non-economic damages address the personal impact of the injury:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress and psychological trauma
- Scarring and permanent disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Post-traumatic stress related to the attack
Michigan does not impose a cap on damages in dog bite cases. The amount a victim can recover depends on the severity of the injuries and the evidence presented.
Statute of Limitations for Dog Bite Claims
Under MCL 600.5805, Michigan's statute of limitations for personal injury claims is 3 years from the date of the injury. This deadline applies to dog bite lawsuits.
Key points about the filing deadline:
- The 3-year clock starts on the date of the bite.
- Minors may have extended deadlines. In Michigan, the statute of limitations is typically tolled (paused) until the minor turns 18, then the standard period begins.
- Claims against government entities (such as a city-owned dog or a government employee's dog) may require notice within a shorter timeframe, often 6 months.
- If a dog bite results in death, MCL 600.5805 provides 3 years for the wrongful death claim as well.
- Missing the deadline almost always bars the claim permanently.
Landlord Liability for Dog Bites in Michigan
Landlords are not considered "owners" of a tenant's dog under MCL 287.351, so strict liability does not automatically apply to them. Instead, landlord liability is governed by common law negligence principles.
A landlord may be held liable for a tenant's dog bite if all of the following conditions are met:
- The landlord knew the tenant's dog was dangerous (for example, the dog had previously attacked or threatened someone).
- The landlord had the authority to remove the dog or take corrective action.
- The landlord failed to act reasonably in response to the known danger.
- The bite occurred on or near the landlord's property.
The Michigan Court of Appeals addressed landlord liability in Szkodzinski v. Griffin, 171 Mich. App. 711 (1988), where a child was bitten by a tenant's Akita after climbing into the landlord's fenced yard. The court affirmed judgment for the landlord because there was no evidence he knew the dog had ever shown aggression, but it recognized that a landlord who neither owns nor keeps a tenant's dog can still be held liable at common law if the landlord knew or had reason to know the dog was dangerous and failed to act.
Landlords should include pet policies in lease agreements and consider requiring tenants with dogs to carry renter's insurance that includes liability coverage.
Breed-Specific Legislation in Michigan
Michigan does not have a statewide ban on any particular dog breed, and the state has not enacted a preemption law that prevents local governments from passing breed-specific legislation (BSL).
As a result, individual cities and townships in Michigan are free to enact their own breed-specific rules. According to Michigan Humane, more than 30 local units of government in Michigan have passed ordinances that regulate dogs based on breed or perceived breed, most commonly pit bulls and pit bull mixes. Some of those ordinances ban a breed outright, while others allow ownership subject to extra conditions.
Local breed-specific regulations may include:
- Mandatory spay or neuter requirements
- Mandatory muzzling in public
- Required liability insurance (often $100,000 or more)
- Secure enclosure requirements
- Breed-specific registration and microchipping
However, many Michigan communities have moved away from breed-based restrictions in favor of behavior-based dangerous dog ordinances. Dog owners should check their local municipal code for any breed-specific rules that may apply.
How to File a Dog Bite Claim in Michigan
If you are bitten by a dog in Michigan, take these steps to protect your legal rights:
- Get medical attention immediately. Even minor bites can cause infection. Keep all medical records and receipts.
- Report the bite to local animal control. Michigan animal control agencies investigate bites and can initiate dangerous animal proceedings.
- File a police report. A police report creates an official record of the incident.
- Document the scene and your injuries. Photograph bite wounds, torn clothing, the location, and the dog if possible.
- Identify the dog and its owner. Get the owner's name, address, phone number, and homeowner's or renter's insurance information.
- Collect witness information. Get names and contact details for anyone who saw the attack.
- Preserve physical evidence. Keep torn or bloodied clothing and any other evidence.
- Consult a personal injury attorney. A lawyer experienced in Michigan dog bite law can evaluate your claim, handle insurance negotiations, and file suit if needed.
Many personal injury attorneys handle dog bite cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay legal fees only if you recover compensation.
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Michigan follow the one-bite rule for dog bites?
No. Michigan is a strict liability state under MCL 287.351. Dog owners are responsible for bite injuries even if the dog has never bitten anyone before. The victim does not need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous.
What is the statute of limitations for a dog bite claim in Michigan?
Michigan gives dog bite victims 3 years from the date of the bite to file a lawsuit, as set by MCL 600.5805. Minors may have extended deadlines, and claims against government entities may require earlier notice.
Can I sue for a dog bite if I was partly at fault?
Under Michigan's strict liability statute, liability turns on whether the bite was unprovoked and whether you were lawfully present. If you were lawfully present and did not provoke the dog, the owner is liable regardless of other circumstances. Comparative negligence generally does not apply to strict liability dog bite claims.
What criminal penalties can a dog owner face in Michigan?
Under the Dangerous Animals Act (MCL 287.321-287.323), an owner whose dangerous dog causes serious injury faces a felony charge with up to 4 years in prison and a minimum $2,000 fine. If the dog causes death, the owner can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, which carries up to 15 years in prison.
Can a landlord be held liable for a tenant's dog bite in Michigan?
A landlord is not automatically liable under the strict liability statute because they are not the dog's owner. However, a landlord can be held liable under common law negligence if they knew the tenant's dog was dangerous, had the authority to remove the dog, and failed to take reasonable action to protect others.
Injured in Michigan? Get a free case review from a personal-injury attorney
If someone else's negligence caused your injury, you may be owed compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Get a free, no-obligation review from a Michigan personal-injury attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Corrected the list of elements a victim must prove under MCL 287.351 to include that the bite was unprovoked, and sourced the breed-specific ordinance figures to Michigan Humane while removing an unverifiable count of outright breed bans.
Corrected the description of Szkodzinski v. Griffin: the landlord in that case actually won (the court found no evidence he knew the dog was dangerous), and the page previously described it as an example of a landlord being held liable.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the claimed 'K-9 Exception': MCL 287.351's strict liability statute contains no police/military-dog carve-out (its only exceptions are provocation and unlawful entry). Any shield for police K-9 handling comes from the separate Governmental Tort Liability Act (MCL 691.1407), not from the dog-bite statute itself.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 287.351Person bitten by dog; liability of ownerIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. (2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner's property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or if the person is on the owner's property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 287.351 as imposing liability absent provocation. Hill v. Sacka (2003) held the comparative fault allocation statutes do not apply to a dog bite action because liability is absolute absent provocation, and Feister v. Bosack (1993) stated that statutory dog bite liability attaches only to owners.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Taylor v. Mobley (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 279 Mich. App. 309)“…liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten...." MCL 287.351(1) (emphasis supplied). At no time du…”
- Hill v. Sacka (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 256 Mich. App. 443)✓A two-year-old was mauled by a chained German shepherd and the jury found his father 75 percent at fault; the court held MCL 287.351 imposes absolute liability absent provocation and that the comparative-fault statutes do not reduce the award.
- Carolyn Sue Kelsey v. Nita Lint (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017)✓A woman returned the day after a garage sale to ask about an item and was bitten on the leg as she got out of her car; the court held a jury could find she was a licensee, so ruling her a trespasser outside MCL 287.351 as a matter of law was error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Dog Bite Laws by State: Liability and Victim Rights
§ 287.321DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this act: (a) "Dangerous animal" means a dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner. However, a dangerous animal does not include any of the following: (i) An animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of the animal's owner. (ii) An animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal. (iii) An animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault. (iv) Livestock. (b) "Livestock" means animals used for human food and fiber or animals used for service to human beings. Livestock includes, but is not limited to, cattle, swine, sheep, llamas, goats, bison, equine, poultry, and rabbits. Livestock does not include animals that are human companions, such as dogs and cats. (c) "Owner" means a person who owns or harbors a dog or other animal.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Janes (Michigan Court of Appeals 2013, 302 Mich. App. 34)“…animal that meets the definition of a dangerous animal in [MCL 287.321(a)] attacks a person and causes serious…”
- People of Michigan v. Debra Olney (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017)“…animal that meets the definition of a dangerous animal in [MCL 287.321(a)] attacks a person and causes serious…”
- Brans v. Extrom (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 266 Mich. App. 216)“…act to bar recovery it could have so specified. See, e.g., MCL 287.321(l)(d) (for the purposes of the dangerou…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 287.322Sworn complaint; summons; surrender of animal; expense; rabies vaccination and license required; destruction of animal; notification of animal control authority; ordering owner of animals to take certain actionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Upon a sworn complaint that an animal is a dangerous animal and has caused serious injury or death to an individual or has caused serious injury or death to a dog, a district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court shall issue a summons to the owner ordering him or her to appear to show cause why the animal should not be destroyed. (2) Upon the filing of a sworn complaint as provided in subsection (1), the district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court shall order the owner to immediately turn the animal over to an animal control authority, incorporated humane society, veterinarian, or boarding kennel, at the owner's option, to be retained until a hearing is held and a decision is made for the disposition of the animal. The owner shall notify the person that retains the animal under this subsection of the complaint and order. The owner is responsible for the expense of the boarding and retention of the animal. The animal must not be returned to the owner until the animal has a current rabies vaccination and license as required by law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. Amanda Ashleigh-Marie Reed (Michigan Court of Appeals 2021)“…(iv) Livestock. [MCL 287.321.] Section 2 of the DAA, MCL 287.322, provides in relevant part:…”
- Michelle Reid v. Katrina Kramer (Michigan Court of Appeals 2019)“…rts therefore erred by ordering Bruiser’s destruction under MCL 287.322(3).3 2 See MCL 287.322(4) (requir…”
- Crandall v. Newaygo, County of (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2023)“…destroyed at the expense of the owner” in accordance with Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.322. (Order Regarding Dangerous Animal, E…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 287.323Owner guilty of involuntary manslaughter, felony, or misdemeanor; penalty; costsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The owner of an animal that meets the definition of a dangerous animal in section 1(a) that causes the death of a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, punishable under section 321 of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.321 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (2) If an animal that meets the definition of a dangerous animal in section 1(a) attacks a person and causes serious injury other than death, the owner of the animal is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years, a fine of not less than $2,000.00, or community service work for not less than 500 hours, or any combination of these penalties. (3) If an animal previously adjudicated to be a dangerous animal attacks or bites a person and causes an injury that is not a serious injury, the owner of the animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, a fine of not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00, or community service work for not less than 240 hours, or any combination of these penalties.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Janes (Michigan Court of Appeals 2013, 302 Mich. App. 34)“…l offense set forth in § 3(2) of the dangerous animals act, MCL 287.323(2), a strict-liability crime. Therefore…”
- People v. Trotter (Michigan Court of Appeals 1995, 209 Mich. App. 244)“…f involuntary manslaughter under the dangerous animals act, MCL 287.323(1); MSA 12.545(23)(1), and was sentence…”
- People of Michigan v. Debra Olney (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017)“…g a dangerous animal causing serious injury in violation of MCL 287.323(2). For the reasons set forth in this o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 600.5805Injuries to persons or property; period of limitations; "adjudication," "criminal sexual conduct," and "dating relationship" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all actions to recover damages for the death of a person or for injury to a person or property. (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging assault, battery, or false imprisonment. (4) Subject to subsection (6), the period of limitations is 5 years for an action charging assault or battery brought by a person who has been assaulted or battered by his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a person with whom he or she resides or formerly resided.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1,140 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts enforce Sec. 600.5805 as written: Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Services (2005) overruled the continuing violations doctrine as inconsistent with it, while Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc (2004) let time-barred malpractice claims proceed on the equities of that case and others then pending.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rory v. Continental Insurance (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 473 Mich. 457)“…ited to being brought within three years pursuant to former MCL 600.5805(9), now MCL 600.5805(10), which governs…”
- Walters v. Nadell (Michigan Supreme Court 2008, 481 Mich. 377)✓A driver hurt in a 2001 crash could not serve the defendant, a servicemember, before the three-year period expired; the court held he waived the federal tolling provision by never raising it below, reasoning the limitations statute is likewise mandatory yet waivable.
- Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Services (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 472 Mich. 263)✓A county psychologist won a $250,000 retaliation verdict resting partly on acts older than three years; the court held the statute requires suit within three years of each adverse act, overruled the continuing violations doctrine, and directed judgment for the employer.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Car Accident Laws: No-Fault, PIP Tiers, and Your Claim, Michigan Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026), Motorcycle Accident Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Helmets
§ 691.1407Immunity from tort liability; intentional torts; immunity of judge, legislator, official, and guardian ad litem; immunity of governmental agency under MISS DIG underground facility damage prevention and safety act; definitionsIn force
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, and without regard to the discretionary or ministerial nature of the conduct in question, each officer and employee of a governmental agency, each volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency, and each member of a board, council, commission, or statutorily created task force of a governmental agency is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer, employee, or member while in the course of employment or service or caused by the volunteer while acting on behalf of a governmental agency if all of the following are met: (a) The officer, employee, member, or volunteer is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1,248 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Maiden v. Rozwood (Michigan Supreme Court 1999, 461 Mich. 109)“…oss negligence actions involving government employees under MCL 691.1407(2)(c); MSA 3.996(107)(2)(c). In Maiden…”
- Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1985, 420 Mich. 567)“…ecent decades. See, e.g., id., pp 984-985 & fn 50. MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). See Thomas v D…”
- Robinson v. City of Detroit (Michigan Supreme Court 2000, 462 Mich. 439)“…substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. [MCL 691.1407(2); MSA 3.996(107)(2).] There is no q…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 600.2959Comparative fault; reduced damagesIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the court shall reduce the damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable. If that person's percentage of fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the other person or persons, whether or not parties to the action, the court shall reduce economic damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306 or 6306a, as applicable, and noneconomic damages shall not be awarded.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp (Michigan Supreme Court 2004)“…ercentage “the total fault of 3 See, also, MCL 600.2959, which provides: In an action…”
- Lamp v. Reynolds (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002, 249 Mich. App. 591)“…rative fault attributed to plaintiff. Defendants argue that MCL 600.2959 mandates such a reduction. We disagree.…”
- Susan Blackwell v. Dean Franchi (Michigan Supreme Court 2018, 914 N.W.2d 900)“…1982 PA 147. It was codified in its present form in 1995 in MCL 600.2959. The Legislature, by requiring that a p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws in Michigan (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Michigan Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability After Kandil-Elsayed, Michigan Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.321 — Manslaughter view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520b — Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; circumstances; felony; consecutive terms view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520c — Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520d — Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.520e — Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 287.351 - Dog Bite Strict Liability Statute(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Act 426 of 1988 - Dangerous Animals Act(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 287.321 - Dangerous Animal Definitions(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 287.322 - Dangerous Animal Proceedings(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.5805 - Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2959 - Comparative Fault(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Szkodzinski v. Griffin, 171 Mich. App. 711 (1988) - Michigan Court of Appeals(courtlistener.com)
- Michigan Humane - Bully Breeds and Breed-Specific Legislation (count of Michigan local BSL ordinances)(michiganhumane.org)