Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Michigan » Court of Appeals » 1996 » EST OF JACQUELINE MARIE PONKE V RAYMOND WILLIAM PONKE
EST OF JACQUELINE MARIE PONKE V RAYMOND WILLIAM PONKE
State: Michigan
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: 180932
Case Date: 09/03/1996
Preview:STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


DENNIS LUTZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of JACQUELINE MARIE PONKE, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v

UNPUBLISHED September 3, 1996

No. 180932 LC No. 94-469929

RAYMOND WILLIAM PONKE, Defendant, and ALAN R. BREDIN, D.D.S., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before: Taylor, P.J., and Murphy and E.J. Grant,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition in this wrongful death action. We affirm. Plaintiff's decedent worked for defendant 1 as a receptionist/secretary. In 1993, she separated from her husband, Raymond Ponke, and subsequently obtained a restraining order against him. Plaintiff's decedent informed defendant that she felt threatened by Raymond Ponke. As a result, defendant took certain precautionary measures at the workplace. Defendant removed curtains from windows, took a knob off of a closet with a locking door to provide a retreat, and devised a plan of escape from the office should the need arise. On January 8, 1994, plaintiff's decedent was assisting defendant with a patient when Raymond Ponke entered the office, and struck plaintiff's decedent with a hammer, killing her.

* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that defendant was negligent in failing to protect plaintiff's decedent. Defendant moved for summary disposition, claiming he owed no duty to protect plaintiff's decedent from Raymond Ponke. The trial court granted summary disposition, ruling that although the employer/employee relationship created, in defendant, a duty to protect plaintiff's decedent, that duty did not extend to this type of harm beyond defendant's control. The trial court also ruled that defendant did not voluntarily assume a duty by implementing precautionary measures. We review the trial court's grant of summary disposition de novo. Parcher v Detroit Edison Co, 209 Mich App 495, 497; 531 NW2d 724 (1995). Because duty is a matter of law, if defendant owed no duty to plaintiff, summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Dykema v Gus Macker Enterprises, Inc., 196 Mich App 6, 9; 492 NW2d 472 (1992). First, plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant assumed a duty to protect plaintiff's decedent by taking certain precautionary measures and implementing a safety plan in light of plaintiff's decedent's troubles with Raymond Ponke. We disagree. There is no allegation that defendant promised to eliminate the danger plaintiff's decedent faced as a result of her relationship with Raymond Ponke. Defendant took these actions to help reduce the risk that plaintiff's decedent faced. "A promise to take specific steps to reduce danger is a promise to do just that
Download EST OF JACQUELINE MARIE PONKE V RAYMOND WILLIAM PONKE.pdf

Michigan Law

Michigan State Laws
Michigan Court
Michigan Tax
Michigan Labor Laws
Michigan State
    > Michigan Counties
    > Michigan Zip Codes
Michigan Agencies

Comments

Tips