Negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle; The owner’s liability statute; MCL 257.401; Amendment of pleadings; MCL 600.2301; Misnomer of a party defendant; Wells v. Detroit News, Inc.; Principle that the law favors the determination of a claim on the basis of its merits; Alken-Ziegler, Inc. v. Waterbury Headers Corp.

The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiffs sued defendants for injuries they sustained when they were rear-ended by a car rented by defendant-Hogge and driven by defendant-Latasha. In a prior appeal, the court remanded. On remand, the trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by dismissing the case after holding that they failed to properly identify the individual who caused the motor vehicle accident. “[P]laintiffs’ naming of ‘Carrie Russell a/k/a Latasha Dawson a/k/a Latasha Phillips’ as a defendant was technically incorrect and resulted from an obvious misunderstanding of the use of the a/k/a designation.” Despite this “naming mistake, it is clear that defendant Hogge was not misled by the misnomer.” Plaintiffs’ “mistaken use of the a/k/a designation in their second amended complaint that was filed after our opinion was issued should have been plainly apparent to the trial court and amended accordingly.” The trial court “should have recognized that plaintiffs’ counsel inadvertently misused the a/k/a designation in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, that defendant Hogge was not misled in any manner by the misnomer and that, for the furtherance of justice, the complaint had to be amended as permitted under MCL 600.2301.” The court noted that the “obvious grammatical mistake of plaintiffs’ counsel should not have resulted in the summary dismissal of plaintiffs’ cause of action and further delayed the resolution of this matter arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.” Thus, “the trial court should have ordered plaintiffs to amend their second amended complaint to correct the name of Hogge’s codefendant—not ordered the dismissal of plaintiffs’ case in its entirety under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because of the inconsequential mistake.” Reversed and remanded.