Christopher Baratta formed Baratta & Baratta, P.C. in 2007. For over 25 years, he has successfully handled all aspects of civil litigation including premises liability, automobile (No-Fault) negligence, insurance coverage disputes, products liability, ERISA subrogation, and commercial litigation for several longstanding business clients. In addition to his longstanding success in the trial courts, Chris has also achieved favorable results in the appellate courts, with published decisions in the MI Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
Mr. Baratta has been appointed by the Court to serve as a Neutral Case Evaluator in Macomb and Wayne Counties, he has served as a Neutral Arbitrator and Facilitator throughout SE Michigan, was invited to join the Million Dollar Advocates Club, is a member of the Macomb County Bar Association and the Italian American Bar Association. He has been honored with an AV rating by his peers, the highest rating in legal ability and ethical standards.
Admission Details
- 1994, Michigan
Law School Attended
- Detroit College of Law, Class of 1994, J.D.
University Attended
- Fordham University, Class of 1990, B.A.
Associations & Memberships
- Eastern District of Michigan for the U.S. District Court
- Western District of Michigan for the U.S. District Court
- Macomb County Bar Association
- Michigan Association for Justice
Appellate Cases
Girard v Dearborn Cinemas, d/b/a National Amusements, Inc., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided May 18, 2001 (Docket No. 219871).
On behalf of defendant, we successfully argued that the dangers presented by an independent roofing contractor’s ladder were open and obvious. Summary disposition was affirmed.
King v Showcase Cinemas-Westland, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided October 25, 2001 (Docket No. 223992).
On behalf of defendant, we successfully argued against plaintiff’s appeal by right from a judgment of no cause for action. Plaintiff
did not persuade the appellate court that defendant had actual notice of the hazardous condition which caused injury.
GLH Trucking, Inc. v R&R Heavy Haulers Inc., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided January 13, 2005 (Docket No. 250601).
On behalf of plaintiff, we commenced litigation over a commercial hauling contract for Wayne County’s Newburgh Lake restoration project. Denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition was upheld on plaintiff’s fraud and breach of contract claims.
Quinto v Woodward Detroit CVS, LLC, 305 Mich App 73 (2014).
In this published decision where we represented the plaintiff, the Court concluded, consistent with Michigan Supreme Court caselaw, that the merchandise-display aisleways of a self-service retail store present particular circumstances to the extent that the open and obvious danger doctrine does not eliminate the duty of the store to take reasonable actions to make those aisleways reasonably safe for its customer-invitees. The Court was bound under MCR 7.215(J)(1) by a prior decision and requested a special conflict panel pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(2).
Estate of Trueblood v P&G Apartments, LLC, 327 Mich App 275 (2019).
In this published decision where we represented the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s granting of summary disposition under MCLA 554.139(1)(a), which requires that the common areas in every residential lease are fit for the use intended by the parties. The Court also concluded that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition to defendant under MCLA 554.139(1)(b), to keep the premises in reasonable repair and to comply with applicable health and safety laws.
Schmidt v Claycomb, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided June 18, 2020 (Docket No. 348689).
We represented plaintiff in the underlying action and in this interlocutory appeal where defendant’s motion for summary disposition was denied. The Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court erred when it determined that there was no question of material fact regarding whether the stairs to defendant’s basement were open and obvious.
Estate of Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., No. 159692 (Mich. Jun. 30, 2021).
In this premises liability action, we successfully argued on behalf of plaintiff in the Court of Appeals (Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 339152 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2019) and in the Michigan Supreme Court. In Chief Justice McCormack’s concurring opinion, joined by Justices Bernstein and Cavanagh, she indicated:
“Indeed, before today’s opinion, our Court had never identified a real-world condition that was effectively unavoidable or unreasonably dangerous such that liability attached.”
