Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 63589; Published
Judges Brennan, Shephard, and Quinnell; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Quinell
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 132 Mich App 751; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability of Non-Motorist Defendants [§3135]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Quinnell, the Court of Appeals held that the tort abrogation provision of the No-Fault Act (§3135) does not preclude plaintiff from maintaining a personal injury action against the defendant auto repair garage under the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act (MCLA 257.1301 et seq) for failure to repair plaintiffs brakes after representing to her that said brakes had in fact been repaired. Section 36 of the Service and Repair Statute creates a new cause of action against service garages who engage "in an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice." This section goes on to state that if the damage or injury occurs as a result of a "willful and flagrant violation of mis Act," the person shall recover double the damages plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. In this case, plaintiff alleged that she took her car into defendant's repair facility to have the brakes repaired.
Defendant's agents specifically represented to plaintiff that the brakes in«fact had been repaired and were in good operating condition when in fact they were not Almost immediately after leaving defendant's premises, plaintiff was involved in a serious personal injury accident
The Court further noted that the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act was enacted after the No-Fault Statute and is addressed to a more specific problem (i.e. unfair or deceptive methods in the repair of vehicles). Thus, the Court stated, "in the event of any conflict between the two statutes in the context presented here, the later statute will prevail."
The Court also stated that those decisions which held that the No-Fault Statute prevailed over the Garage Keepers Liability Act (MCLA 256.541 et seq) were not applicable because the No-Fault Statute was enacted after the Garage Keepers Liability Act.
The Court also held that §3135 does not bar actions based on breach of contract or breach of warranty. In this case, plaintiffs complaint alleged a contractual relationship between the parties and the allegations in the complaint were "sufficient to support recovery on contract theories as well as on tort theories."
Finally, the Court cited the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens v Tuttle (item number 429) as clearly establishing that the tort abrogation provisions of the No-Fault Statute only apply to motorist tortfeasors. Thus, a repair garage cannot take advantage of those immunity provisions.
