Bailiff hurt occupant in eviction

If someone is hurt by a bailiff when being evicted, the bailiff may be liable.

The court held that defendant-Dixon failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to governmental immunity (or quasi-judicial immunity) as a matter of law as to the plaintiff-PR's assault and battery claim. The court also held that the Court of Claims did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and that Dixon was not entitled to summary disposition on plaintiff's gross negligence claim. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's order denying Dixon's motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff sued defendants, including Dixon, a bailiff, for negligence or gross negligence and assault and battery in the death of her husband during an eviction. The court rejected Dixon's argument that he was entitled to governmental immunity, noting that there was "ample evidence" that he acted "maliciously and with wanton and reckless disregard for" the decedent's rights. The court also rejected his argument that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction, finding that Dixon did not meet the criteria for being labeled a "state officer" under Burnett. The court also rejected his argument that he was entitled to summary disposition on plaintiff's gross negligence claim, concluding that "there were sufficient additional allegations to avoid the precepts of VonVorous," and plaintiff set forth sufficient facts demonstrating gross negligence. Further, the court rejected Dixon's argument that he was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, finding that he failed to present sufficient persuasive authority to support his argument, "and his actions were not analogous to those of a judge." Affirmed.