Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 335760
Judges Kelly, Jansen, and Meter; Unanimous; written by Judge Kelly; Published
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Vehicle Maintenance
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion written by Judge Kelly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition regarding governmental immunity for Defendant City of Detroit (“Detroit”) and reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition regarding gross negligence of Defendant Derrick Pennington (“Pennington”). The Court upheld the denial of summary disposition regarding governmental immunity because it found that the vehicle in question was operated “as a motor vehicle” at the time of the accident. The Court reversed the denial of summary disposition regarding Pennington’s gross negligence because it found that he was not responsible for checking the lug nuts on the motor vehicle.
Plaintiff Bruce Wood (“Wood”) was severely injured when he was struck by a tire at an intersection in Detroit. The tire had come off a van owned by Detroit and operated at the time by Pennington. Pennington testified that he felt a jolt when he lost the tire and went to investigate where the tire went. Pennington had the authorities contacted after he saw Wood lying on the ground. Wood brought an action against Pennington and Detroit for negligence. Both Defendants asserted governmental immunity. The trial denied both motions for summary disposition regarding governmental immunity.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of summary disposition regarding Detroit’s assertion of governmental immunity. The Court explained that governmental immunity has a broad application; however, there is an exception for injuries that occur from a motor vehicle. The Court explained that the exception for a motor vehicle required the “operation of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.” In this case, Pennington’s testimony established that he was operating the van at the time the wheel came off the vehicle. Therefore, the van was being operated as a motor vehicle at the time of the accident. This finding that the van was being used as a motor vehicle also precluded Detroit’s second contention that it fell within the maintenance exception to the No-Fault Act. Further, the Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding negligence because a crash reconstructionist testified that there was no evidence the tire was secured by lug nuts before it dislodged. Thus, the Court upheld the denial of summary disposition regarding governmental immunity for Detroit.
“Here, Pennington’s testimony established that he was operating the van as a motor vehicle at the time that the accident occurred. Specifically, he was driving at 20 to 25 miles per hour when the driver’s side rear tire came off his vehicle. The question on appeal is whether his operation was negligent. In response to defendants’ motion for summary disposition, Wood submitted an affidavit from Timothy Robbins, a traffic crash reconstructionist, who asserted that there was no evidence that the rear left tire had been secured by lug nuts and that the tire came loose while being driven due to the absence of lug nuts.”
The Court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition regarding Pennington’s gross negligence. The Court explained that government employees are immune from tort unless they commit gross negligence. Here, the Court found that Pennington was not responsible for inspecting the van. The maintenance department was responsible for such inspection. Further, there was no evidence that Pennington was aware of any problem prior to driving the van. Pennington’s potential failure to pull over and inspect the van when there was “wobbling” did not rise to the level of gross negligence.
“[T]he responsibility for ensuring the vehicle was in proper working order fell to maintenance.[] There is no evidence whatsoever that, before driving [T]he vehicle, Pennington was actually aware that there were no lug nuts on the driver’s side rear tire, and his failure to inspect it before driving, although arguably negligent, simply does not rise to the level of gross negligence. Further, although it is reasonable to infer that Pennington was aware that the tire on his vehicle was wobbling before the tire came off, there is no evidence that he was aware that the wobbling was caused by the absence of lug nuts, nor is there any evidence that the only possible cause for a wobbling tire is that the wheel is about to fall off. Accordingly, on this record, Wood provided no evidence that Pennington’s conduct rose to the level of gross negligence.”
Thus, the Court upheld the trial court in part and reversed the court in part.
