Alfred Miller v. City of Flint
334404
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On June 6, 2015, Dan’s Excavating ruptured a gas main on Dort Highway in Flint; the site was reported to the Flint Fire Department (FFD).
- Sgt. (then Lt.) Gerald Hunt was dispatched, arrived ~11:50 a.m., spoke with the site foreman who said the area had been cleared, and directed dispatch to notify Consumers Energy; Hunt left about 12:00 p.m.
- At ~1:20 p.m. the gas main exploded; plaintiff, riding a motorcycle on Dort Highway, sustained severe burns and was treated at the scene and hospitalized.
- Plaintiff sued Hunt (and others) alleging gross negligence: abandoning the scene, failing to block traffic, warn the public, or otherwise secure a danger zone.
- Hunt moved for summary disposition based on governmental immunity (GTLA), arguing no gross negligence and no causal responsibility for the leak/explosion; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Hunt’s on-scene actions were not grossly negligent as a matter of law and that governmental immunity therefore barred the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunt’s conduct was grossly negligent under the GTLA | Hunt abandoned the scene, failed to establish a danger zone, close the highway, or otherwise protect motorists; those omissions caused plaintiff’s injuries | Hunt acted within scope, took precautions (cleared area, notified dispatch/Consumers Energy, told foreman to keep area clear), and did not recklessly disregard safety | Not grossly negligent; reasonable minds could not differ — governmental immunity applies |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary disposition | Plaintiff: factual issue exists whether Hunt undertook actions in good faith and whether omissions were proximate cause | Hunt: undisputed facts show he contacted Consumers Energy, ensured area cleared, and left after directing precautions | No genuine issue of material fact on gross negligence; summary disposition appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (procedural standard for de novo review of summary disposition)
- Dextrom v. Wexford County, 287 Mich. App. 406 (court must consider affidavits and other evidence on (C)(7) motion)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (GTLA immunity framework)
- Love v. City of Detroit, 270 Mich. App. 563 (three-part test for employee immunity under MCL 691.1407(2))
- Chelsea Inv. Group LLC v. Chelsea, 288 Mich. App. 239 (ordinary negligence insufficient to show gross negligence)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (definition of gross negligence as near willful disregard of precautions)
- Briggs v. Oakland County, 276 Mich. App. 369 (when courts may decide gross negligence as a matter of law)