Mark Stieve v. City of Dearborn
329591
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Mark and Denise Stieve sued the City of Dearborn and Officer Kyle Bowen after an officer-operated vehicle crash during an emergency response, alleging injuries and statutory-tort theories.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition claiming governmental immunity; plaintiffs invoked the motor vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405) to waive the City's immunity and alleged Bowen’s gross negligence to defeat officer immunity (MCL 691.1407).
- Disputed facts include Bowen’s speed, whether lights/siren were on, and whether the dispatch call reasonably qualified as an emergency requiring immediate response.
- The majority held there were genuine issues of material fact both as to the City’s liability under the motor vehicle exception and as to whether Officer Bowen was grossly negligent.
- Judge Murray concurred in part but dissented as to gross negligence, arguing the record did not support a finding of wilful disregard for safety and that statutory violations alone ordinarily show ordinary, not gross, negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City liability is established under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity | City’s immunity is waived because operation of the police vehicle during the response caused injury | City argues emergency-response decisions and vehicle operation do not trigger the exception | Majority: Genuine issue of material fact exists; denial of summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether Officer Bowen is entitled to governmental immunity (i.e., whether his conduct was grossly negligent) | Bowen’s driving was so reckless as to demonstrate substantial lack of concern for whether injury resulted | Bowen argues conduct, including treating the call as an emergency, did not rise to gross negligence; any statutory violations show ordinary negligence at most | Majority: Genuine issue of material fact as to gross negligence; Murray J.: would reverse—no gross negligence shown |
| Whether Bowen’s decision to deem the dispatch an emergency can be used to impose City liability under the motor vehicle exception | Plaintiffs rely on reasonableness of Officer’s emergency response as relevant to operation of vehicle | Defendants say decision to treat call as emergency is separate from vehicle operation and thus not within motor vehicle exception | Murray J.: Supreme Court precedent (Robinson) bars using the decision to classify the call as emergency to impose City liability; but majority still finds other factors create factual disputes |
| Whether statutory violations (e.g., speed, lights/siren) suffice to show gross negligence | Plaintiffs argue statutory violations support finding of gross negligence | Defendants argue statutory violations typically show ordinary negligence not gross negligence | Murray J.: Violation of statute alone insufficient to prove gross negligence; no record evidence of wilful disregard or singular disregard for substantial risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439 (Sup. Ct.) (decision to pursue or treat situation as emergency is separate from vehicle operation for motor vehicle exception)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Sup. Ct.) (evidence of ordinary negligence does not establish gross negligence)
- Oliver v. Smith, 290 Mich. App. 678 (Mich. Ct. App.) (gross negligence requires wilful disregard for safety measures and singular disregard for substantial risk)
- Poppen v. Tobey, 256 Mich. App. 351 (Mich. Ct. App.) (statutory duty violation typically constitutes ordinary, not gross, negligence)