LASHONDA DIXON V CITY OF TAYLOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LASHONDA DIXON, Personal Representative of
the Estate of CHARLES DAWSON,
UNPUBLISHED
April 27, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
CITY OF TAYLOR and LLOYD EDWARDS,
a/k/a MATTHEW EDWARDS,
No. 290074
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-101190-NO
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and TALBOT and WILDER, JJ.
M. J. KELLY, P.J. (concurring).
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm. However, I write separately because I
conclude that defendants were entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
Having abandoned all her other counts, plaintiff’s sole remaining cause of action before
us on appeal is for gross negligence. See MCL 691.1407(2)(c) (creating an exception to
governmental immunity for acts of gross negligence). In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that
officer Edwards intentionally shot the decedent, Charles Dawson, eight times. There is no
allegation that the shooting was accidental. As such, the claim is not—and cannot be—one for
gross negligence. This Court has rejected attempts to transform claims involving elements of
intentional torts into claims of gross negligence. See Vanvorous v Burmeister, 262 Mich App
467, 483-484; 687 NW2d 132 (2004); Smith v Stolberg, 231 Mich App 256, 258-259; 586 NW2d
103 (1998); Sudul v Hamtramck, 221 Mich App 455, 458, 477; 562 NW2d 478 (1997). Thus, as
pleaded, plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and defendants were
entitled to summary disposition in their favor under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
