Carrie S Flanagin v. Kalkaska County Road Commission
330887
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff was injured when her car collided with a county snowplow driven by Schlagel while he was working for the Kalkaska County Road Commission. Schlagel was later dismissed; the commission remained defendant.
- Plaintiff alleges the plow crossed the centerline and was driven too fast for conditions; defendant contends plaintiff crossed the centerline. For statutory-analysis purposes the court assumed the plow crossed the centerline.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition based on governmental immunity; the trial court denied the motion.
- Central statutory provisions: MCL 257.603 (exemptions for government/authorized vehicles) and MCL 257.634(1)(c) (driving left of center when a state/local vehicle is engaged in work).
- Plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit (initially unsigned; later corrected) and an accident reconstruction report (Meyers) showing the plow 4–6 feet over the centerline; the trial court considered the late/executed submissions.
- Trial court held a genuine issue of material fact existed as to negligent operation and applicability of the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 257.603 or MCL 257.634(1)(c) immunizes the road commission from tort liability when a plow crosses the centerline | Statutes allow crossing centerline while working, so no liability | Statutes authorize crossing centerline, so government is immune | Statutes remove a traffic-rule violation but do not create immunity from negligence; crossing authorized does not preclude negligence liability |
| Whether authorization to cross centerline prevents finding negligence per se or ordinary negligence | Flanagin says authorization means only no traffic violation, negligence claim remains | Commission says authorization defeats the negligence claim / immunity | Authorization precludes negligence per se based on the specific code violation, but driver still must exercise due regard for safety; ordinary negligence still viable |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by considering a late unsigned affidavit and a late crash report | Plaintiff says corrected affidavit and report should be considered; they create factual disputes | Defendant says submissions were untimely / defective and should be disregarded | Trial court acted within discretion to consider corrected affidavit and report; consideration not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that the plow was negligently operated so the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity applies (MCL 691.1405) | Expert and crash report place plow 4–6 feet over centerline and raise factual questions (visibility, curve, speed) | Commission argues even if over centerline, statutory authorization makes conduct lawful and no negligent operation is shown | Evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue whether the plow was negligently operated; summary disposition on immunity was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Smith, 290 Mich. App. 678 (review standard for summary disposition)
- Co. Road Ass’n of Mich. v. Governor, 287 Mich. App. 95 (standard for governmental immunity issues)
- Dressel v. Ameribank, 468 Mich. 557 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 417 Mich. 461 (drivers excused from rules must still have due regard for safety)
- Kalamazoo v. Priest, 331 Mich. 43 (principle that exemptions do not excuse endangering others)
- McKay v. Hargis, 351 Mich. 409 (same)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (affidavit formalities on summary disposition)
- Prussing v. Gen. Motors Corp., 403 Mich. 366 (trial-court discretion on considering late submissions)
- Radeljak v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 475 Mich. 598 (scope of trial-court discretion)