Seldon v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
297 Mich. App. 427
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff injured January 2008 while riding a SMART bus driven by Perry; wheelchair ejects and bilateral ankle fractures occur when Perry brakes for a yellow light.
- Plaintiff sues SMART and Perry for negligence and gross negligence; trial court denied SMART summary disposition on immunity and granted Perry summary disposition on gross negligence.
- Regulatory framework: DOT/ADA provisions prohibit requiring wheelchair users to wear seat belts or shoulder restraints unless mandated for all passengers; various DOT/FTA interpretations discussed.
- Court addresses duty to advise about shoulder restraint, operation of a motor vehicle under MCL 691.1405, and whether Perry’s braking constitutes negligence or gross negligence.
- Court also considers whether SMART had a duty to secure plaintiff in her wheelchair with restraints and whether failure to inform constitutes operation of a motor vehicle.
- Outcome: majority affirms in part and reverses in part; SMART prevails on immunity-related issues; Perry’s gross negligence claim dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to advise about shoulder restraint | Plaintiff argues SMART owed duty to inform about shoulder restraint. | SMART contends no duty to advise under regulations. | SMART had no duty; trial court erred. |
| Motor vehicle operation exception | Failure to inform constitutes operation of a motor vehicle. | Failure to advise does not implicate operation under MCL 691.1405. | Not within motor vehicle exception; immunity applies. |
| Sudden stopping and negligence | Perry’s sudden stop was negligent or at least disputed as a jury issue. | Stops are normal incidents; no negligent operation proven. | No genuine issue of material fact; Perry not negligent; summary disposition proper. |
| Duty to apply seat belts or restraints | SMART owed duty to secure in wheelchair with restraints. | No such duty exists; regulations prohibit mandates absent policy for all. | No duty to secure with restraints; SMART properly granted summary disposition. |
| Gross negligence by Perry | Perry’s actions constitute gross negligence. | Perry acted within scope; no gross negligence or proximate cause. | No gross negligence; Perry’s conduct not proximate cause; summary disposition affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Muskegon Co, 467 Mich 315 (2002) (interprets 'operation of a motor vehicle' in immunity context)
- Martin v Rapid Inter-Urban Partnership, 480 Mich 936 (2007) (loading/unloading considered within operation of a shuttle bus)
- Russ v Detroit, 333 Mich 505 (1952) (sudden stops generally not negligence causing injuries in transit)
- Sherman v Flint Trolley Coach, Inc., 304 Mich 404 (1943) (loading/unloading cases; travel-related causation guidance)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (gross negligence standard and factual question analysis)
- Fultz v Union-Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460 (2004) (duty elements in negligence; threshold existence of duty)
- Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331 (1998) (summary disposition standard; evidentiary review)
- Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618 (2004) (appeals from immunity rulings; scope of review)
- Curtis v City of Flint, 253 Mich App 555 (2002) (proximate cause in gross-negligence context)
- Briggs v Oakland Co, 276 Mich App 369 (2007) (proximate cause and gross negligence framework)
- United States v. Mead Corp, 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (agency interpretation binding unless defective or arbitrary)