A pedestrian was injured when he was struck by a tire while crossing a street. The plaintiff pedestrian testified he heard something, turned toward the sound, and saw a tire a foot away from him. He stated that he tried to stop the tire, but the next thing he recalled was waking up in the hospital. The run-away tire that caused plaintiff’s injuries came off of a van owned by the City of Detroit, which was being driven at approximately 20 to 25 miles per hour at the time of the incident. The pedestrian filed suit for first and third-party no-fault benefits and Defendant City of Detroit, as well as the defendant driver of the van, moved for summary disposition arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by governmental immunity.
Generally, a government employee is immune from liability for injuries caused in the course of employment while acting on behalf of his or her government employer if: “(a) [t]he [individual] is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority”; “(b) [t]he governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function”; or “(c) [t]he [individual's] conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.” MCL 691.1407(2). However, one exception to the general rule providing immunity for government actors is the motor vehicle exception. The motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity states: "Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damages resulting from the negligent operation by any . . . employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is owner." MCL 691.1405.
Plaintiff Wood argued that his injuries arose out of the negligent operation of the Van by the defendant employee of the City of Detroit and therefore, the motor vehicle exception to government immunity applied. Defendant’s claimed that the motor vehicle exception was inapplicable because if there was negligence, it constituted negligent maintenance and not negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Defendant also asserted that there was no evidence of gross negligence on the part of the driver.The Wayne County Circuit Court agreed with the plaintiff and denied defendants’ Motions. Defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision precluding summary disposition under the motor vehicle exception finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the driver was negligent in his operation of the van where there was evidence that prior to the wheel falling off, the tire would have been noticeably wobbling. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision regarding the gross negligence of the driver, finding that there was no evidence that the driver was negligent, let alone grossly negligent, for failing to ensure that there were lug nuts on the van prior to driving it.
The published decision is Wood v City of Detroit, Court of Appeals 335760, decided March 15, 2018.
Read more about our expertise in personal injury & accident law, and No Fault Insurance.
NO FAULT INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY & ACCIDENT LAWAbout the Author
