Paul Demos v. Smart
332532
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Paul Demos was rear-ended by a SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) bus driven by Gregory Cook at a green light; Demos sued SMART for negligence and negligent entrustment.
- SMART is a governmental agency; Demos alleged violation of MCL 257.402 (rear-end presumption of negligence) and sought recovery under the governmental tort liability act's motor-vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405).
- Bus video recorded the approach, showed surrounding stopped vehicles, and captured siren sounds and a police vehicle with lights activated just before the collision; Demos and Cook gave conflicting testimony about whether sirens/lights were perceived.
- SMART moved for summary disposition asserting governmental immunity and claiming the collision resulted from a sudden emergency; Demos moved for summary disposition arguing MCL 257.402 established prima facie negligence and no sudden emergency.
- The trial court denied both summary-disposition motions; SMART appealed the denial of governmental immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SMART is entitled to governmental immunity for the collision | Demos: MCL 257.402 creates prima facie negligence, bringing the claim within the motor-vehicle exception to immunity | SMART: governmental immunity applies unless plaintiff shows negligent operation; presumption insufficient given immunity | Denied: rear-end presumption under MCL 257.402 establishes prima facie negligence; immunity not established as a matter of law |
| Whether a sudden emergency (rebutting presumption) existed as a matter of law | Demos: evidence shows emergency (siren, police car) and thus fact question whether Cook had notice | SMART: stopped traffic for police created sudden emergency warranting summary disposition | Denied: credibility/conflicting evidence makes sudden-emergency applicability a jury question (no clear, positive, credible proof of unsuspected emergency) |
| Whether negligent entrustment claim survives governmental immunity defenses | Demos: negligent entrustment incorporates MCL 257.402 allegation, pleading avoidance of immunity | SMART: negligent entrustment not tied to negligent operation so immunity applies | Denied: complaint adequately pleaded negligent entrustment tied to negligent operation; question remains for jury |
| Preservation and reviewability of negligent-entrustment argument | Demos: appellate jurisdiction proper because trial court denied governmental immunity | SMART: argued dismissal below; court omitted express ruling | Reviewed: appellate court may decide because record sufficient; issue resolved on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427 (addresses when denial of governmental immunity is appealable)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (standard for summary disposition (C)(10))
- Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226 (defines "sudden emergency" for rebutting rear-end presumption)
- Szymborski v Slatina, 386 Mich 339 (when sudden-emergency issue can be decided as a matter of law)
- Blue Harvest, Inc v Dep’t of Transp, 288 Mich App 267 (standards for (C)(7) consideration of documentary evidence)
- Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186 (requirement that plaintiffs plead in avoidance of governmental immunity)
- Regan v Washtenaw Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs (On Remand), 257 Mich App 39 (distinguished on negligent-entrustment facts)