Where a catastrophic collision occurred between a snowmobile operated by a plaintiff and a crossover utility vehicle operated by a defendant employee of the codefendant Department of Natural Resources, a denial of the DNR’s motion for summary disposition must be reversed because the Court of Claims erred by concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff could establish the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity outlined in MCL 691.1405.
“In Docket No. 364150, defendant, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), appeals as of right the order denying its motion for summary disposition. In Docket No. 364167, plaintiffs, Mark Goss (Goss) and Christy Goss (Christy), appeal as of right the order granting summary disposition to defendant, the Estate of Roy Lee Pederson (the Pederson Estate). We reverse the trial court order denying the DNR summary disposition and remand to the trial court for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of the DNR, and affirm the order granting the Pederson Estate summary disposition.
“On February 26, 2018, a catastrophic collision occurred between a snowmobile operated by Goss and a 2015 John Deere Gator 625i crossover utility vehicle (Gator) operated by Pederson, who was a DNR Ranger. The result of the accident was tragic. Pederson died at the scene, and Goss was seriously injured.
“Following the accident, Goss sued the DNR in the Court of Claims for negligence and gross negligence. Goss argued that the DNR could not invoke governmental immunity under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq ., because the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity applied.
“In Docket No. 364150, the DNR challenges the Court of Claims’ decision to deny its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10). The DNR argues that the Court of Claims erred by concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed on whether Goss could establish the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity outlined in MCL 691.1405. We agree.
“Here, Goss did not meet his burden of establishing that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding negligence.
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Goss, we conclude that the factual record does not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding negligence. The evidence only establishes that an accident took place, which is an insufficient basis on which to infer causation. ... Goss was required to set forth specific facts that would support a reasonable inference of cause and effect; rather, Goss’s causation theory is premised on mere conjecture and speculation. ... He failed to meet his burden to present sufficient evidence to ‘exclude other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty,’ particularly where the experts retained by the DNR and the Pederson Estate opined that Goss could have seen the Gator before he entered the intersection, that Goss should have responded to the yield sign by slowing down to reach a speed which would allow him to stop to avoid collision with cross-traffic, and that the accident was the result of Goss’s failure to yield to Pederson while the Gator was in the intersection. Therefore, the Court of Claims erred in denying the DNR summary disposition, and remand for entry of an order granting the DNR’s motion is warranted.
“In Docket No. 364167, plaintiffs argue that the Court of Claims erred by granting the Pederson Estate’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of gross negligence. We disagree.”
Dissenting judge’s comments
FEENEY, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part) “I concur with the majority that the Court of Claims correctly determined that the Pederson Estate was entitled to summary disposition in the absence of gross negligence. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that ‘the lack of data available to all of the testifying witnesses results in opinions that are too speculative to establish a genuine issue of material fact’ of negligence by the Department of Natural Recourses (DNR) and would affirm the denial of summary disposition to the DNR. Therefore, I must dissent.”
Goss v. Dep't of Natural Res.; MiLW 08-107996, 11 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Rick, J., Jansen, J.; Feeney, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; on appeal from Court of Claims; Christopher P. Desmond for appellant; Adam R. DeBear for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Click here to read the full text of the dissent
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0