917 N.W.2d 709
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 3, 2015 Bruce Wood was struck by a tire that detached from a City of Detroit van driven by employee James Pennington; Wood suffered significant injuries.
- Pennington testified he was driving ~20–25 mph when the rear-left tire came off; he felt a jolt and stopped to investigate.
- Wood sued for first- and third-party no-fault benefits and tort damages; defendants moved for summary disposition asserting governmental immunity.
- Wood submitted an expert affidavit (crash reconstructionist Timothy Robbins) opining lug nuts were absent, the wheel had been wobbling, and the operator likely would have been warned by wobble.
- Defendants argued the motor-vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405) did not apply because any fault was negligent maintenance (not negligent operation) and that Pennington was not grossly negligent (MCL 691.1407(2)).
- Trial court denied summary disposition; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part (denying immunity under motor-vehicle exception) and reversed in part (employee not shown grossly negligent as matter of law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motor-vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405) applies | Wheel detached while van was being driven; reconstructionist says lug nuts absent so operation was negligent | Detachment resulted from prior maintenance, not negligent operation; exception inapplicable | Exception may apply; factual dispute (existence of lug nuts/wobble) precludes summary disposition |
| Whether Pennington was negligent in his operation | Expert opinion and inference from wobble/medical record raise issue that driver would have been warned and acted negligently if he continued driving | Pennington testified he did not notice the tire problem before it detached; relief-van maintenance responsibility rested with maintenance | Issue of ordinary negligence for jury; summary disposition on negligence denied |
| Whether Pennington’s conduct amounted to gross negligence under MCL 691.1407(2) | If no lug nuts were ever installed, that could demonstrate gross negligence | No evidence Pennington knew lug nuts were missing; relief-van inspections were maintenance’s responsibility; no willful disregard shown | Reversed as to gross negligence: no evidence that Pennington’s conduct rose to statutory level of gross negligence |
| Whether statutory violation (MCL 257.683) creates gross-negligence presumption | Violation of vehicle safety statute supports negligence and may support gross negligence inference | Statutory violation yields at most prima facie ordinary negligence, not gross negligence without additional evidence of substantial reckless disregard | Court: violation may create presumption of ordinary negligence only; does not alone establish gross negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, 285 Mich. App. 362 (app. 2009) (standard of review for summary disposition)
- McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich. App. 592 (app. 2010) (governmental immunity reviewed de novo)
- Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich. 186 (Mich. 2002) (plaintiff must plead facts establishing an exception to governmental immunity)
- Chandler v Muskegon Co, 467 Mich. 315 (Mich. 2002) ("operation of a motor vehicle" means being operated as a motor vehicle; exception covers activities directly associated with driving)
- Poppen v Tovey, 256 Mich. App. 351 (app. 2003) (general governmental immunity principle)
- Cipri v Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc, 235 Mich. App. 1 (app. 1999) (statutory violations create prima facie evidence of negligence)
- Chelsea Investment Group LLC v Chelsea, 288 Mich. App. 239 (app. 2010) (ordinary negligence insufficient to show gross negligence)
- Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (app. 2004) (gross negligence requires more than hindsight-based criticism; requires willful disregard)
- Briggs v Oakland Co, 276 Mich. App. 369 (app. 2007) (gross-negligence question is ordinarily for jury; summary disposition appropriate only if reasonable minds could not differ)