Supreme Court issues brief opinion relating to partial dismissal of shooting victim's injury claim

Devon Scott Bailey sued a number of people after he was shot while attending a picnic at an apartment complex.  He argued that the security officers employed by the apartment complex were negligent in responding to the presence of an armed gunman, and that shooting would have been avoided if the defendants had engaged the police more promptly.  His case has been hung up in the appellate courts for several years now, as the defendants have sought summary disposition on numerous grounds.  This month the Supreme Court denied the defendants' latest argument and allowed the case to go back to the trial court on the limited theory that has not been dismissed. 

If the victim can prove to a jury's satisfaction that his injury would not have occurred but for the Defendants' negligence in responding to the presence of the gunman, he will be able to recover some share of his damages from the defendants.  As a general rule, however, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that merchants and landlords owe no duty to visitors, consumers or tenants, to protect them from criminal activity--even if it is foreseeable.