Aryanna Moon v. Atheer Kadhim-Jawad Al-Sabti, 330981

Minor Aryanna Moon was struck while crossing Saginaw Street at an unmarked but commonly used curb cut near Westmoreland in Lansing.
Aryanna waited for traffic to diminish, then began a “fast walk” into the street after a car in the curb lane turned left; she testified her view of defendant’s van was blocked by that turning car.
Defendant Al‑Sabti was driving a van in a center lane behind the turning car; he testified he did not see Aryanna until the moment of impact and that he braked and steered but could not avoid the collision.
A bystander (Catherine Hunt) testified Aryanna had entered the street and the van ‘‘should have seen her’’ and could have stopped; a police officer placed the impact two to three lanes from the curb.
The trial court granted defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), concluding Aryanna admitted she entered the roadway without ensuring it was clear, leaving no factual dispute. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether defendant breached his duty to the pedestrian.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists on defendant’s negligence (breach)	Aryanna argues evidence (witness and officer testimony on impact location and visibility) shows defendant should have anticipated pedestrians and maintained control to avoid hitting her.	Al‑Sabti argues Aryanna admitted she stepped into traffic without assuring it was clear and his view was obstructed until the moment of impact, so no breach as a matter of law.	Reversed: Court held there are disputed material facts about whether defendant breached the duty to exercise due care, so summary disposition was improper.
Whether the trial court improperly resolved credibility/factual disputes on a (C)(10) motion	Plaintiff contends credibility and factual inferences should be decided by a jury, not on summary disposition.	Defendant asserts plaintiff’s admissions remove any triable factual dispute.	Held: Court reiterated a (C)(10) motion cannot resolve credibility; reasonable people could differ, so factual resolution must go to the trier of fact.

Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(10) and viewing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 491 Mich 200 (2012) (C(10) tests factual sufficiency of the claim)
Staunton v. Detroit, 329 Mich 516 (1951) (drivers must anticipate pedestrians and keep car under control when visibility is limited)
Ritchie‑Gamster v. City of Berkley, 461 Mich 73 (1999) (use of safety‑rule concept across contexts)
Poe v. Detroit, 179 Mich App 564 (1989) (elements of negligence and duty of driver to pedestrians)
In re Handelsman, 266 Mich App 433 (2005) (trial court may not make credibility findings on summary disposition)
Mull v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 196 Mich App 411 (1992) (if reasonable people could differ, the issue is for the jury)