court and the court of appeals agreed that equitable subrogation is inapplicable because the equities between Medica and Atlantic were equal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that equitable subro-gation is not appropriate under the facts and circumstances in the instant case. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. 1 . “Medica” refers to'Medica, Inc., the appellant in this case, while " 64-65, 321 N.W.2d 199, 203-04 (1982) (interpreting "person responsible for such injury or death” in a crime victims statute as referring to the person who caused an injury when the statute was entitled "Recovery from offender” and the statute as a whole referred to awards to victims of crimes). 4 . See, e.g., Michigan Mut. Liab. Co. v. Karsten, 13 Mich.App. 46, 49-50, 163 N.W.2d 670, 671-72 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Ballavance v. Safeco Ins. Co., 432 N.W.2d
holding that a person who cut and removed timber pursuant to the direction of the person in possession of the property but without the written consent of the company holding legal title to the land could be held liable under the gtccs holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under  1983 holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding with no analysis that any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor applies to a person legally liable for injuries caused by an accident   4 when under the facts of the case the only person to whom the clause could have applied was a tortfeasor holding that under the applicable statutory provisions a person need not be impoverished or devoid of all assets to qualify as an indigent sick person but only that the person be unable to pay for necessary medical care