Sandra Rupert v. Freda Daggett
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19631
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rupert sued Daggett in a diversity action for Daggett’s negligent operation causing the death of Rupert’s husband, Ivan Rupert.
- Daggett and Otteren operated as pilot cars escorting wide-load trucks; Daggett was the more experienced driver.
- Daggett and Otteren attempted a U-turn on I-70 to reorient eastbound after an attempted on-ramp return.
- Rupert’s motorcycle collided with Otteren’s vehicle as the U-turns occurred; Rupert died.
- A state-court record shows Otteren was later convicted of careless driving; the district court granted summary judgment for Daggett.
- The district court applied Michigan law and held Daggett’s conduct was superseded by Otteren’s negligence; the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by Daggett to Rupert | Rupert argues Daggett’s duty was breached due to negligent conduct. | Daggett contends no duty arose because no special relationship existed. | Duty present; foreseeability supports duty to exercise reasonable care. |
| Breach of duty | Daggett’s U-turn across two lanes created a foreseeable risk. | Daggett asserts no negligence given the circumstances; no special duty issue. | Reasonable jury could find breach from the abrupt U-turn creating danger. |
| Causation (but-for and proximate) | Daggett’s conduct induced Otteren’s U-turn, proximate to Rupert’s death. | Otteren’s independent negligence or superseding cause breaks causation. | Genuine issues exist as to causation; proximate cause is for the jury. |
| Damages | Death damages are recoverable; proper for jury to decide. | None specific beyond establishing injury status. | Damages are established for jury consideration; not dispositive of liability. |
| Negligence per se | Daggett’s U-turn could be negligent per se under Michigan law. | Not addressed because not raised below or on appeal. | Not reached; issue not raised or briefed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sponkowski v. Ingham Cnty. Rd. Comm’n, 393 N.W.2d 579 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (duty to exercise reasonable care; foreseeability standard)
- Jones v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 806 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. 2011) (proximate causation; foreseeability inquiry for liability)
- Ridley v. City of Detroit, 590 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (superseding cause; foreseeability inquiry for intervening acts)
- Ykimoff v. Foote Mem. Hosp., 776 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (intervening causes; jury question on foreseeability)
- Schaefer v. City of Detroit, 703 N.W.2d 774 (Mich. 2005) (proximate cause; foreseeability standard for liability)