Wrongful death action under the Wrongful Death Act; MCL 600.2922; The wrongful-conduct rule; Orzel v Scott Drug Co; Stopera v DiMarco; Use of a controlled substance; MCL 333.7404(1); People v Robar

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants (minor-Andrew and parents) summary disposition of plaintiffs’ wrongful death action for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs sued defendants for the death of their son, Ian, after he purchased pills from Andrew that contained fentanyl. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, finding the claim was barred by the wrongful-conduct rule. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was an “insufficient causal nexus between Ian’s wrongful conduct of seeking to purchase and use Percocet and the fentanyl overdose that caused his death.” It noted that “Ian’s conduct involving the possession and use of a Schedule 2 controlled substance was conduct that is ‘prohibited or almost entirely prohibited under a penal or criminal statute,’ and his death resulted from this prohibited serious misconduct, thus making the wrongful-conduct rule applicable to this situation.” And as “to causation, if Ian had not illegally possessed and used the controlled substance that he obtained from Andrew, he would not have died.” Further, contrary “to plaintiffs’ contentions on appeal, the effect of the wrongful-conduct rule is not to immunize individuals who illegally sell dangerous controlled substances. Rather, that side effect is merely a result of the overriding public policy justifying the wrongful-conduct rule, which is ‘that courts should not lend their aid to a plaintiff who founded his cause of action on his own illegal conduct.’” Because plaintiffs “cannot establish their cause of action without relying at least in part on Ian’s illegal conduct, the trial court did not err by determining that plaintiffs’ action was barred by the wrongful-conduct rule and granting summary disposition” on that basis. Affirmed.