e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84006
Opinion Date : 07/14/2025
e-Journal Date : 07/28/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Kinsey v. County of Wayne
Practice Area(s) : Civil Rights Municipal
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Mariani, Murray, and Trebilcock
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Action under 42 USC § 1983; Municipal liability; Monell v Department of Soc Servs; Morgan by Next Friend Morgan v Wayne Cnty; Whether a policy of inadequate training or supervision existed; Whether a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations existed; D’Ambrosio v Marino

Summary

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-county summary disposition of plaintiffs-inmates’ § 1983 claims. Plaintiffs sued defendant for injuries they sustained when their overloaded jail elevator “plummeted to the basement level[.]” On appeal, the court found there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant “did not maintain a custom, policy, or practice of overloading jail elevators, nor did it fail to provide training and supervision for the prevention of overloading elevators.” The court could not see how the testimony established “a genuine issue of material fact that [the jail] maintained a custom or practice of overloading elevators that was clear and persistent, or of which the municipality had notice and tacitly approved at the time of the subject incident.” Nor could it “be said that testimony regarding two instances of overloading an elevator by the same individual establishes a genuine issue of material fact of ‘a clear and persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct by municipal employees.’” Similarly, the testimony failed “to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding improper supervision or training.” Although there was testimony “that elevators would be overloaded every day in the [jail] as part of a custom and practice that supervisors were aware of,” the testifying witness “had not worked as a deputy in the [jail] for over 20 years prior to the subject incident . . . .”  And the portion of another witness’s “testimony plaintiffs cite to regarding one prior instance of overloading she experienced, has not convinced us that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether [defendant] had a policy for improper training or supervision with regard to overloading elevators.” Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion