Background
Michael Duby was severely injured when his friend Andrew Brill discharged a shotgun while the two men and another friend were returning from scouting and hunting small game on property operated by Mann Farms LLC. Andrew had consumed eight beers and two shots of whiskey before the group arrived. Andrew’s father, John Brill, supplied him with the shotgun, despite knowing that Andrew had a drinking problem and behaved recklessly after drinking.
Duby sued Andrew, John, and Mann Farms. The trial court held that Michigan’s recreational land use act applied, limiting liability to injuries caused by gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. It also excluded evidence of Andrew’s prior felony conviction and directed a verdict for John and Mann Farms on the remaining negligent-entrustment claim. A jury awarded Duby more than $7 million against Andrew.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that the recreational land use act applied. Duby and his companions were scouting for a future deer hunt and looking for small game, activities falling within hunting or the statute’s catchall for other outdoor recreational use. Duby had not paid money or conferred a pecuniarily measurable benefit for permission to hunt, and the statute was not limited to large, undeveloped tracts of land.
The court also affirmed the exclusion of Andrew’s approximately 12-year-old criminal-sexual-conduct conviction. The unrelated conviction did not tend to show that John knew or should have known Andrew would use a shotgun unsafely, and its prejudicial effect supported exclusion.
But the court reversed the directed verdict for John and Mann Farms. Viewed favorably to Duby, the evidence—including Andrew’s alcohol consumption, John’s knowledge of Andrew’s drinking problem and alcohol-related recklessness, and conflicting testimony about John’s observations that evening—could permit reasonable jurors to find that John was grossly negligent in supplying the shotgun. Because Mann Farms’ potential respondeat-superior liability was derivative of John’s liability, the court reinstated the claims against both and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Scouting for a future hunt while looking for small game qualifies as hunting or another outdoor recreational use under Michigan’s recreational land use act.
- Permission to control animals that once threatened farm crops was not valuable consideration where no money or pecuniarily measurable benefit was exchanged for access and the farm had no crops at the time.
- A jury must decide whether supplying a shotgun to a person known to drink heavily and behave recklessly when drinking amounted to gross negligence under the evidence presented.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the broad reach of Michigan’s recreational land use act: its heightened liability threshold depends on the visitor’s activity and lack of paid consideration, not whether the property is developed or agricultural.
It also illustrates that negligent entrustment may reach a jury under a gross-negligence standard when the supplier knew of the user’s relevant dangerous tendencies, even when witnesses disputed whether the user visibly appeared intoxicated at the moment of entrustment.