The Michigan Supreme Court is a judicial hellhole that’s driving away business in the Great Lakes State, according to the American Tort Reform Association.

For the second year in a row, ATR included the Michigan Supreme Court in its annual Judicial Hellholes report, which focuses on legal jurisdictions that expand civil liability and encourage excessive litigation.

“After appearing in the Judicial Hellholes report for the first time last year, it appears the Michigan Supreme Court is ready to become a mainstay,” according to the report. “The Court sent mixed signals about junk science, continues to take an expansive approach to premises liability and created innovative ways for employees to sue their employers.”

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

The report, which ranked the Michigan Supreme Court eighth worst judicial hellhole in the U.S., points to the court’s embrace of Rule 702 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence that requires expert testimony to be based on reliable scientific principles and methods, while also overturning lower court dismissals of the case Danhoff v. Fahim for lack of evidence.

The court in that case found “scientific literature is not always required to support an expert’s standard-of-care opinion, but that scientific literature is one of the factors that a trial court should consider …”

ATR also cited the court’s overturning long-standing framework in deciding slip-and-fall cases last year, doing away with a defense for “open and obvious” dangers.

“Instead of dismissing cases in such circumstances, courts will be required to conduct a trial in which a jury may allocate fault to the plaintiff, reducing his or her damages,” according to the report. “From a practical standpoint, this means that it will be nearly impossible for premises owners to have slip-and-fall cases dismissed even when it involves the most obvious hazard, like ice and snow in Michigan.”

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

The report further outlines cases that created new ways for employees to sue their employers, and cited “judicial activism on display” in the Michigan Supreme Court’s 4-3 party line decision to invalidate changes to a 2018 ballot initiative adopted by the legislature.

The report points to dissent in that case, Mothering Justice v. Attorney General, from Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, who wrote “as tempting as it might be to step into the breach” and decide whether the changes should be law, “the Court lacks the power to create restrictions (on the legislature’s power to make and amend laws) out of whole cloth.”

The report notes the economic impact of excessive tort costs in Michigan equates to about $1,046 per person. The situation translates into 97,167 lost jobs, costing Michiganders $6.76 billion in lost personal income, according to ATR.

Those totals could increase further with pending litigation and legislation.

ATR cites Beaubien v. Trivedi, a lawsuit pending before the Michigan Supreme Court involving claims a doctor negligently failed to detect a brain tumor that led to a patient’s death.

“At trial (in federal court), the jury awarded his estate $115,000 in medical expenses and $6.5 million in noneconomic damages, plus $2 million to his wife for loss of consortium,” according to the report.

Michigan limits noneconomic damages for medical liability to roughly $1 million, and the patient’s estate challenged the cap in court, alleging it violates the state constitution’s right to jury trial and equal protection.

“Michigan’s intermediate appellate courts have repeatedly found the statutory limit constitutional, but the state supreme court has not decided the case,” according to the report.

ATR also put the Michigan Legislature on its “Heat Watch” after Democrats secured a government trifecta in the 2022 elections, which “emboldened the trial bar to push an aggressive liability-expanding agenda.”

Data cited in the report shows trial lawyers also spent $21.1 million on 457,533 TV, print, digital and outdoor advertising spots in just the first two quarters of 2024.

“Several pending bills raised red flags for potential lawsuit abuse,” according to the report. “Already, the legislature repealed a law in 2024 that precluded lawsuits alleging that medications are defective when the FDA had approved the product and its labeling.”