Estate of Earl King v. Christopher Sawyers
332178
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- At ~6:20 a.m. on Jan. 9, 2014, Earl King (82, African‑American, using a cane) was struck and later died after being hit by Christopher Sawyers while crossing Middlebelt Road in Inkster in dark, icy, blowing‑snow conditions.
- King was wearing all black; defendant was driving southbound with headlights on and at about 25 mph (posted limit 40), having just passed an intersection with a crosswalk and street lighting at Michigan Avenue.
- Defendant stated King stepped directly in front of his vehicle ~200 feet south of Michigan Avenue; defendant was the only eyewitness and was not cited.
- Plaintiff’s expert, former officer Sammie Hall, opined King was in or near the crosswalk and would have been in the roadway ~20 seconds before impact (based on an assumed 1.5 mph walking speed), challenging defendant’s account and suggesting visibility/assured‑clear‑distance issues.
- Trial court denied defendant’s renewed motion for summary disposition; on appeal the Court of Appeals considered whether Hall’s affidavit was admissible and whether, absent it, defendant was entitled to summary disposition under the assured‑clear‑distance and sudden‑emergency doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact to defeat MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary disposition | Hall’s opinions place King in/near crosswalk and on road long enough that defendant violated assured‑clear‑distance duty | Hall’s opinions are speculative, outside expertise, and contradict undisputed evidence (dark, snowy, King in black, sudden appearance) | Hall’s affidavit was inadmissible/inherently speculative; without it no factual dispute remained and summary disposition should have been granted to defendant |
| Whether defendant violated the assured‑clear‑distance‑ahead statute (MCL 257.627) | Defendant should have been able to see and stop for King (Hall: headlights visibility ~500 ft and King visible ~13 sec) | Defendant was driving cautiously with headlights on in adverse weather and King stepped into the road suddenly outside crosswalk | Court declined to apply assured‑clear‑distance given Hall’s opinion unreliable; concluded facts show a sudden emergency not of defendant’s making, defeating negligence per se |
| Whether the sudden‑emergency doctrine applies | King was in crosswalk/was in road long enough that there was no sudden, unforeseeable emergency | King suddenly stepped into the vehicle’s path in poor visibility, creating an unexpected emergency | Court found evidence (absent Hall) supported sudden‑emergency exception and defendant was not negligent |
| Admissibility standard for expert testimony at summary judgment | Expert experience and conclusions should create factual dispute | Expert opinion must satisfy MRE 702, be reliable, not speculative, and be based on established evidence | Court applied MRE 702 principles and excluded or discounted speculative portions of Hall’s affidavit as insufficient to preclude summary disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Barber, 353 Mich. 427 (defining assured‑clear‑distance‑ahead rule)
- DePriest v. Kooiman, 379 Mich. 44 (common‑law duty to exercise due care in adverse conditions)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard for reviewing summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc., 274 Mich. App. 122 (appellate review standards for expert admissibility and trial court discretion)
- Amorello v. Monsanto Corp., 186 Mich. App. 324 (expert testimony must be admissible to preclude summary disposition)
- Edry v. Adelman, 486 Mich. 634 (MRE 702 requires more than experience; expert opinion may be excluded if speculative)
- Badalamenti v. William Beaumont Hosp‑Troy, 237 Mich. App. 278 (expert testimony cannot rely solely on disparaging eyewitness observations)
- McKinney v. Anderson, 373 Mich. 414 (negligence per se presumption may be overcome by sudden emergency not of defendant’s making)
- Vander Laan v. Miedema, 385 Mich. 226 (sudden‑emergency exception when situation is unusual or unsuspected)
- Hale v. Cooper, 271 Mich. 348 (driver not required to guard against every conceivable result)
- Houck v. Carigan, 359 Mich. 224 (no negligence where pedestrian suddenly darted into vehicle and driver had not seen plaintiff)