Sean Wood v. Jessica Beels
331386
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Jessica Beels, acting as Memphis City Chief of Police in a marked police vehicle, failed to stop at a stop sign and struck plaintiff Sean Wood’s FedEx truck. Eyewitness said no lights or sirens were activated.
- Plaintiff alleged Beels was grossly negligent, including driving under the influence, speeding, failing to stop, and failing to maintain control.
- Two lay witnesses (Kelly Wood and Adam Cooley) attested they smelled alcohol on Beels’s breath and observed unsteady behavior; Beels drank water at the scene.
- Beels admitted being distracted, not seeing the stop sign or the FedEx truck, and not braking; she testified she thought the speed limit was 55 mph and denied evidence of intoxication.
- Beels moved for summary disposition arguing governmental immunity (MCR 2.116(C)(7)) and lack of genuine factual dispute (MCR 2.116(C)(10)); the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding factual disputes sufficient to permit a jury to conclude Beels’s conduct was grossly negligent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity bars the claim because defendant’s conduct was not grossly negligent | Beels’s actions were grossly negligent (D was intoxicated, speeding, disobeyed stop sign, inattentive) | Beels asserted immunity because her conduct did not amount to gross negligence and affidavits of intoxication lacked foundation | Affirmed denial of summary disposition: factual disputes exist and reasonable minds could conclude gross negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Moraccini v. Sterling Heights, 296 Mich. App. 387 (court reviews governmental immunity de novo)
- Kincaid v. Cardwell, 300 Mich. App. 513 (pleadings accepted as true unless contradicted by documentary evidence when assessing immunity)
- Jackson v. Saginaw County, 458 Mich. 141 (summary disposition standard re immunity when reasonable minds cannot differ)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) and considering evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Sherman v. David, 293 Mich. 489 (gross negligence is fact-specific)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (gross negligence shows almost willful disregard of precautions)
- White v. Taylor Distrib. Co., Inc., 275 Mich. App. 615 (courts do not resolve witness credibility on summary disposition)