Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #253214; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Zahra and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Applicability of Comparative Fault to Noneconomic Loss Claims [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendants in this third-party no-fault action, finding plaintiff failed to show that defendant was negligent and that she was less than 50 percent at fault for the accident under MCL 500.3135(2)(b). The accident at issue occurred when defendant Romp was attempting to turn left out of a mall parking lot across two lanes of traffic and the middle turn lane. The defendant cleared the first two lanes but was struck by plaintiff as he started across the middle turn lane. The plaintiff argued defendant proceeded into the road without first stopping but said she did not see him until she was about seven or eight feet away from him. Meanwhile, defendant asserted that he did stop before he initiated his left-hand turn. In affirming the trial court’s determination that plaintiff was more than 50 percent at-fault for the accident, the Court of Appeals first found that in order for plaintiff to be where she was at the time of impact, she had to have disregarded the pavement markings in violation of MCL 257.647 when she entered the middle turn lane. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff admittedly entered the turn lane three or four car lengths west of the driveway. The picture attached to defendants’ motion shows that the entrance to the turn lane is east of the point where plaintiff admitted that she entered the turn lane. Plaintiff has not disputed the accuracy of the picture. Moreover, the police report and the picture attached to plaintiffs’ response show that the accident occurred west of the entrance to the turn lane. Therefore, the trial court properly determined that plaintiff entered the turn lane early as plaintiff’s own documentary evidence showed.”
The court then found plaintiff failed to show that defendant was negligent because she admitted she did not see him until they were both in the left turn lane and therefore she could not have known whether he had stopped before he proceeded into the road. In making this determination, the court said:
“Romp testified at his deposition that he came to a complete stop at the driveway to Fifteen Mile Road before crossing the two eastbound lanes of traffic and that he came to a complete stop before entering the turn lane. Plaintiff testified that she did not see Romp until he was seven or eight feet in front of her in the turn lane. Therefore, plaintiff had no knowledge whether Romp stopped before entering Fifteen Mile Road. . . . Plaintiff failed to present any evidence of Romp’s negligence; thus, she failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Thus, because plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault for the accident, the trial court properly granted summary disposition for defendants.”
