Estate of Cornell Fuller v. Carl Douglas Tramel Jr
321285
Mich. Ct. App.Aug 4, 2015Background
- Pedestrian Cornell Fuller was struck on Eight Mile Road at ~11:30 p.m.; road was four lanes each direction with a wide median and unlit at the scene. Fuller had been drinking and later tested BAC 0.139. He exited a bus and crossed midblock; he testified he saw traffic “way down there” before crossing and was struck after walking ~18 feet into the roadway.
- Defendant Carl Tramel was driving westbound in the second lane from the right at an admitted speed of about 40–45 mph; he testified he did not see Fuller until just before impact and swerved, hitting Fuller with his driver’s side mirror. Conditions were clear and dry but dark and unlighted.
- Plaintiff submitted a human-factors report by Prof. Robert Pachella estimating visibility under headlights (150–280 feet), perception-reaction/braking times, and concluding Fuller would have been visible in time for an attentive driver to stop or slow to mitigate impact.
- The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and excluded Pachella’s report; plaintiff appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the report should have been considered, that a duty existed, and that Pachella’s analysis created a factual dispute on breach precluding summary disposition. The court declined to resolve comparative-fault statutory defenses at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of human-factors report | Pachella is a qualified expert; his report assists jurors on perception, lighting, reaction, and braking and is substantively admissible | Trial court: report wouldn’t assist jury, contained engineering/calculation beyond Pachella’s expertise, and attempted to create new duty | Court: erred to exclude; Pachella’s human-factors analysis would assist the jury and used accepted constants/calculations within his expertise |
| Existence of duty | Tramel, as driver, owed ordinary-care duty to pedestrian | Tramel/trial court suggested no duty due to Fuller’s midblock crossing/intoxication | Court: driver owed common-law duty to exercise ordinary care to pedestrians; duty existed |
| Breach of duty | Pachella’s distances/reaction/braking analysis shows a factual dispute whether Tramel could have seen and stopped or slowed to avoid/mitigate collision | Tramel argued he did not see Fuller until just before impact and the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway | Court: Pachella’s report created a genuine issue of material fact on breach; summary disposition improper |
| Comparative-fault (intoxication) defense | N/A (reserved) | Tramel argued MCL 600.2955a(1) or MCL 500.3135(2)(b) could bar recovery if Fuller >50% at fault due to intoxication | Court declined to decide statutory comparative-fault defenses on appeal and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruddock v. Lodise, 413 Mich. 499 (human-factors expert admissible to explain perception on road)
- Berryman v. K Mart Corp., 193 Mich. App. 88 (Pachella previously admitted as human-factors expert)
- Benson v. Watson, 26 Mich. App. 142 (driver’s duty to see pedestrian and jury question whether driver should have seen decedent)
- Johnson v. Hughes, 362 Mich. 74 (use of data-based analyses to assess visibility issues)
- Prove v. Interstate Stages, 250 Mich. 478 (courts take judicial notice of commonsense physics/math)
- Case v. Consumers Power Co., 463 Mich. 1 (elements of negligence)
- Laier v. Kitchen, 266 Mich. App. 482 (duty question reviewed de novo)
- Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich. App. 406 (summary-disposition standards—draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Ernsting v. Ave Maria College, 274 Mich. App. 506 (MCR 2.116(C)(10) standards)
- Jimkoski v. Shupe, 282 Mich. App. 1 (liberal in finding genuine issues of material fact)
- Pearce v. Rodell, 283 Mich. 19 (obscured vision due to conditions does not relieve driver of duty to reduce speed)
- Houck v. Carigan, 359 Mich. 224 ("dart-out" fact pattern where driver could not have seen pedestrian—distinguished)
- O’Dell v. Decker, 2 Mich. App. 14 (visibility in road and jury question whether driver should have seen child)
- Persail v. Moseley, 343 Mich. 78 (fact question whether driver could have seen plaintiff in time to avoid collision)
- Taylor v. Modern Engineering, Inc., 252 Mich. App. 655 (nonmoving party must present substantively admissible evidence to avoid summary disposition)
- Edry v. Adelman, 486 Mich. 634 (trial court’s admission/exclusion of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)