Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150604_C322808_31_322808.OPN.PDF">People v. Pace</a>, No. 322808, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 257.601d imposes strict liability on motorists who commit a moving violation that causes serious impairment of a body function to another person.  The court also held that strict liability does not violate due process because the statute addresses the public welfare and imposes a misdemeanor with a relatively small penalty. 
 
Defendant Pace struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk with his car, causing head trauma and leaving the pedestrian permanently disabled.  Defendant was charged with a misdemeanor under MCL 257.601d(2) for committing a moving violation that caused serious impairment of a body function to another person.  Prior to his trial, defendant moved for a jury instruction requiring the prosecution to prove that the accident was caused by his negligence.  The district court granted the motion, and the prosecution applied for leave to appeal.  That application was denied, and the Court of Appeals granted the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal the denial.  On appeal, the court addressed the issues of whether MCL 257.601d was a strict liability offense and whether the statute was constitutional. 
 
The court held that the legislature impliedly intended to make MCL 257.601d a strict liability offense.  Reviewing the statute de novo, the court found that it is silent regarding fault or intent.  Rather, it only requires a causal link between a moving violation and another person suffering a serious impairment of a body function.  No negligence or intent is required to violate the statute. 
 
The court then considered whether MCL 257.601d violated due process by imposing strict liability.  The court examined the history of strict liability offenses, and noted that Morrissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) allows for strict liability for “public welfare offenses.”  The requirement of a moving violation in MCL 257.601d “clearly indicates that public welfare is at issue” in the statute.  The court thus held that there is “no question” whether the Legislature has the authority to enact MCL 257.601d as a strict liability offense.  Because the statute concerns the public welfare, and the offense is a misdemeanor with a relatively small penalty, strict liability under MCL 257.601d does not offend due process.

core/freeform

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

COA: strict liability for misdemeanor moving violation statute does not offend due process

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

COA: strict liability for misdemeanor moving violation statute does not offend due process

professionals