Estate of Aaron Reid v. Thomas Walker
328587
Mich. Ct. App.Feb 7, 2017Background
- On Nov. 3, 2011, 19-year-old Aaron Reid (under-21) rode a bicycle at night after drinking; his BAC was 0.07 and he wore dark clothing with no lights or reflectors.
- Reid and two friends rode along Whitmore Lake Road; witnesses and one driver (Walker) testified Reid crossed from left to right in front of Walker’s pickup and was struck.
- Walker admitted a previously "finicky" low beam and that he accelerated to ~45–50 mph and used high beams before seeing Reid; Walker swerved and struck the bicycle.
- Two subsequent drivers (Willis and Voight) then struck or ran over Reid while approaching the scene; neither had alcohol in their systems.
- Crash investigators and the deputy medical examiner concluded Reid’s dark clothing, lack of lighting/reflectors, intoxication, and crossing the road caused the accident; some experts for Reid contested causation and asserted vehicle speed was excessive.
- Trial court granted defendants’ MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact because Reid was more than 50% at fault; the Estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary disposition was improper because a genuine factual dispute existed about parties’ comparative fault | Estate argued expert opinions and Walker’s admission of speeding/nonfunctioning headlight raise factual disputes about defendants’ negligence and speed | Defendants argued Reid was >50% at fault—dark clothing, no lights/reflectors, intoxication, and testimony he crossed in front of vehicle—and so are immune under comparative-fault statutes | Court affirmed: no reasonable juror could find Reid ≤50% at fault; summary disposition proper |
| Whether Reid’s intoxication and age bar recovery under comparative-fault and intoxication statutes | Estate argued experts showed alcohol was not a factor | Defendants pointed to Reid’s BAC (0.07) and testimony about drinking and no sleep to show impaired judgment | Court found Reid’s intoxication and inexperience supported finding he was more than 50% at fault |
| Whether conflicting physical evidence (rear impact vs. crossing) created a material factual dispute | Estate emphasized bicycle damage and some experts’ reconstruction suggesting rear impact or excessive vehicle speed | Defendants relied on eyewitness testimony and autopsy findings consistent with crossing and causing the collision | Court held eyewitness and medical testimony resolved the conflict in defendants’ favor; physical differences did not create a triable issue |
| Whether evidence supported negligence by Willis and Voight (subsequent drivers) | Estate argued Willis and Voight were traveling too fast and failed to exercise caution | Defendants noted their speeds were not excessive at the scene and they slowed or attempted to avoid the collision | Court concluded no reasonable juror could find Willis/Voight more at fault than Reid |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (summary disposition standard; consider record in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich App 113 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich 358 (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts creating a genuine issue)
- Cole v. Barber, 353 Mich 427 (typically negligence is for the jury, but not when no reasonable juror could find otherwise)
- Huggins v. Scripter, 469 Mich 898 (affirming summary disposition where no reasonable juror could find defendant more at fault)