Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 340667; Unpublished
Judges O’Brien, Jansen, and Ronayne Krause; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision (Justice Ronayne Krause, concurring) regarding government immunity, the Court of Appeals determined that a question of fact existed as to whether Defendant’s police officer’s conduct was grossly negligent and the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s death, so as to overcome governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals also determined that a toxicology report that showed marijuana in the Plaintiff’s system at the time of the accident was admissible, even though Defendant’s experts could not prove that Plaintiff was impaired at the time of the collision. The Court determined that the test was “relevant to the question of negligence which, as noted earlier, must be considered to determine whether the decedent could be an additional proximate cause of the accident.”
Decedent was killed after colliding with a police officer who abruptly turned into the Plaintiff’s lane of traffic to conduct a traffic stop. The decedent was driving a motorcycle at the time of the accident, and the officer testified that visibility issues prevented him from accurately gauging the Decedent’s distance. Dashcam footage also revealed that the officer did not turn his traffic lights on until after he had initiated his turn into Decedent’s lane of traffic. A toxicology report after the accident revealed that Decedent had THC in his system; Defendant’s expert witnesses, however, could not provide an opinion as to whether the marijuana usage impaired Decedent’s ability to operate his motorcycle. The defendant also offered expert witnesses who concluded that Decedent was speeding at the time of the collision, but the Plaintiffs offered expert testimony to refute those conclusions.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendant moved for summary disposition. Defendants argued that there was no evidence that its officer was negligent or grossly negligent; the Plaintiffs argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the officer’s gross negligence. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to exclude the toxicology report because the Defendant’s experts were unable to determine whether the decedent was actually impaired at the time of the collision.
The trial court denied all motions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed those denials, first determining that a question of fact existed as to whether Defendant’s police officer was grossly negligent and the proximate cause of Decedent’s death. The dash-cam footage shows that the officer may not have had any “clear line of sight when he began to make his turn,” and that his decision to turn “into the lane of oncoming traffic without ascertaining that it was safe to do so” may have been grossly negligent.
The Court next determined that a question of fact existed as to whether the officer’s gross negligence was the proximate cause of Decedent’s death. Specifically, whether or not it was “foreseeable that [the officer’s] actions would be harmful to the decedent” if, in fact, the officer could not have seen the decedent as he made his turn, perhaps because of the glare. Moreover, perhaps the decedent’s marijuana use and speeding were more than 50% responsible for his death.
Lastly, the Court concluded that toxicology reports were admissible because they were relevant to questions of contributory negligence and causation because any amount of a schedule 1 controlled substance in a motorist’s body created a presumption of negligence.
We agree with defendants that the fact that the decedent’s blood tested positive for THC is relevant to the question of negligence which, as noted earlier, must be considered to determine whether the decedent could be an additional proximate cause of the accident, possibly relieving Murphy or the city of liability. To this end, MCL 257.625(8) prohibits a person operating a motor vehicle with “any amount” of a schedule 1 controlled substance in his body. This creates a presumption of negligence on the decedent’s part. Klanseck, 426 Mich at 86. In addition, plaintiffs’ emphasis on the inability of defendants’ experts to state with certainty that the decedent’s marijuana use impaired his ability to drive reflects an overly narrow view of relevance. Moreover, it conflates intoxication with actual impairment. To avoid liability pursuant to MCL 600.2955a(1), defendants must show both that the decedent was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, and that the substance impaired the decedent’s ability to function such that the decedent was 50% or more the cause of the accident. When deciding questions of fact, a jury is permitted to consider all the evidence and make inferences from testimony presented. Jenkins v Raleigh Trucking Servs, Inc, 187 Mich App 424, 427; 468 NW2d 64, 66 (1991). Even though defendants’ experts were unable to offer an opinion regarding whether the decedent was actually impaired at the time of the accident, their testimony about how marijuana affects brain chemistry would provide the jury with a basis for determining that the decedent’s brain chemistry could have been affected if he was under the influence of marijuana. The toxicology results were probative of whether the decedent was under the influence of marijuana, even if the results, standing alone, could not establish the extent, if any, of the decedent’s impairment. It would be up to the jury to determine from this evidence, along with other testimony and evidence of the decedent’s conduct and reaction to the events, including the jury’s own observations of the situation encountered by the decedent as depicted in the dash-cam video, whether the decedent’s use of marijuana impaired his senses “to the point that [his] ability to react [was] diminished from what it would [have been] had [he] not consumed liquor or a controlled substance.” MCL 600.2955a(2)(b).
Judge Ronayne Krause, concurring, agreed with the majority’s determination as to the admissibility of the toxicology report but disagreed with its reasoning that MCL 257.625(6)(a) overrides the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
