A man who was injured after a city bus struck his vehicle established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the bus driver operated the bus in a negligent manner, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel has held, vacating a grant of summary disposition for the city.
At issue is whether the alleged bus driver and a DDOT employee operated the bus in a negligent manner such that the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, or GTLA, applied.
“On the facts presented to us, we hold the trial court erred by granting the City’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) because, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [plaintiff] as the nonmoving party, his factual allegations establish a question of fact regarding whether Doe negligently operated the bus, and thus, whether the motor vehicle exception to the GTLA applies,” the judges explained.
The decision is Arnold v. City of Detroit ( MiLW 08-108015 , 6 pages). Judges Stephen L. Borrello, Brock A. Swartzle and Adrienne N. Young sat on the panel.
Bingham Farms attorney Daniel G. Romano represented the plaintiff and Sheri L. Whyte of the City of Detroit Law Department represented the defendant. Neither could be reached for comment.
Bus accident
On a November evening in 2019, Anthony Arnold retrieved a diaper bag from a vehicle parked on the street. He got into the vehicle, sat down and reached for the diaper bag in the back seat. Before he exited, he checked for oncoming traffic, looking in the rearview mirror and behind the vehicle.
As he opened the driver’s side door, a bus owned by the city of Detroit struck the door, injuring Arnold. He claimed that the bus driver pulled in front of the vehicle for roughly 30 seconds before driving away.
Arnold identified the bus by cab number, and filed a report about the accident with the Detroit Police Department the next day.
At a later deposition, Doe testified that he was a bus driver for the city. He wasn’t certain he worked the afternoon shift on the date of the incident but denied that he was involved in an accident on that day, that he hit a car door and that his bus was damaged in 2019.
In its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) , the city argued Arnold’s claims were barred by the GTLA, and that he failed to assert facts supporting an exception to its governmental immunity.
In response, Arnold contended the city failed to show it was entitled to summary disposition; under MCL 691.1405 , a government agency has no immunity from liability for bodily injury or property damage resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an agency employee.
The Wayne County Circuit Court granted the city’s motion for summary disposition.
Arnold appealed.
Question of fact
The panel said the lower court erred when it granted the city’s motion because Arnold had established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Doe operated the bus in a negligent manner.
The motor vehicle exception MCL 691.1405 in the GTLA states: “Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by an officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is owner .”
Arnold’s complaint contended that Doe breached his duty of care in several ways, including not having control of the bus and operating it in an unsafe manner, going over the speed limit, not observing the road and not applying his horn or brakes.
The city’s documentary evidence included, among other items, a crash report, testimony from Arnold’s deposition, and an unpublished decision from 2017, Parkman v Enterprise Leasing Co of Detroit LLC.
In its reply, the city added a photo of Evergreen Road, supposedly showing it was “not a wide boulevard” and a letter from Arnold’s counsel asking the city to preserve video footage from the bus involved in the incident.
“With the possible exception of the photo of Evergreen Road, none of the documentary evidence presented by the City disputed Arnold’s factual allegation that Doe’s negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries,” the panel said. “The trial court, therefore, erred by granting summary disposition to the City. Specifically, summary disposition is properly granted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) ‘when the undisputed facts establish that the moving party is entitled to immunity granted by law,’ and a factual dispute exists here as to whether the motor vehicle exception to the GTLA applies.”
The judges reversed the lower court, saying the city failed to show it was entitled to immunity under the GTLA.
“We hold Arnold pleaded sufficient facts to create a question of fact as to whether Doe negligently operated the bus, and the City failed to present documentary evidence disputing those facts,” the panel concluded.
The matter returns to Wayne County for further proceedings.
If you would like to comment on this story, contact Cory Linsner at clinsner@milawyersweekly.com .
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0