Alan Bugai v. Ward Lake Energy
331551
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- On Feb 1, 2014 Alan Bugai was snowmobiling on a DNR-designated trail when his snowmobile struck a plowed, unmarked access road owned by Ward Lake Energy and he was ejected and injured.
- Bugai sued for ordinary negligence, alleging the plowed access road created a hidden, dangerous drop-off and that Ward Lake failed to keep premises safe or warn snowmobilers.
- Ward Lake moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the Recreational Use of Land Act (RUA) barred ordinary negligence claims by nonpaying recreational users and that only gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct could give rise to liability.
- The trial court denied the motion, reasoning the RUA did not apply because the hazard was a man-made, nonnatural condition (relying on Cypret v Lea).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the RUA applied and that Bugai failed to create a factual dispute supporting gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct, so summary disposition for Ward Lake was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the RUA bar an ordinary negligence action by a nonpaying snowmobiler injured on defendant’s land? | Bugai: RUA inapplicable because the hazard (plowed access road and snowbanks) was an artificial, nonnatural defect. | Ward Lake: RUA applies to snowmobiling; ordinary negligence claims are barred absent gross negligence or willful/wanton conduct. | RUA applies; ordinary negligence barred. |
| Did Bugai pay the “valuable consideration” required to avoid RUA immunity? | Bugai: He paid a state snowmobile license and DNR grants/support circulate funds to trail maintenance; local leasing/grants indicate consideration. | Ward Lake: No specific fee was paid to defendant for use of its land; license/grants do not satisfy RUA’s “specific fee for the area.” | No; Bugai did not pay the specific fee required, so RUA immunity applies. |
| Did Bugai present evidence of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct to survive summary disposition? | Bugai: Testimony contested speed and location; defendant knew snowmobilers used the trail and plowing could create a hazard. | Ward Lake: Plowing was routine; evidence does not show reckless indifference or intent to harm. | No genuine factual dispute; evidence insufficient to show gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 (Supreme Court of Michigan 2004) (RUA applies to recreational users generally; statute’s plain language not limited to undeveloped land)
- Cypret v Lea, 173 Mich App 222 (Court of Appeals 1988) (RUA inapplicable where land altered by gravel mining created steep banks)
- Wymer v Holmes, 429 Mich 66 (Supreme Court of Michigan 1987) (prior interpretation of RUA limited to undeveloped land; later overruled)
- Montgomery v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 172 Mich App 718 (Court of Appeals 1988) (elements of willful and wanton misconduct)
- Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80 (Court of Appeals 2004) (gross negligence requires conduct showing singular disregard for substantial risks)
- Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263 (Court of Appeals 2003) (definition of gross negligence)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (Supreme Court of Michigan 1999) (ordinary negligence evidence insufficient to establish gross negligence)