Prima facie negligence case; Case v. Consumers Power Co.; Duty; Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assoc.; Graves v. Warner Bros.; A motor vehicle driver’s general duty to pedestrians to exercise ordinary & reasonable care & caution in operating the vehicle; Zarzecki v. Hatch; Effect of a pedestrian suddenly darting into a defendant’s car; Houck v. Carigan; Principle that the mere happening of an accident does not raise a presumption of negligence; Michigan Aero Club v. Shelley; Barger v. Bissell; A pedestrian’s duties; Malone v. Vining; Richardson v. Rockwood Ctr., LLC; Whether the breach of a duty is always a fact question for the jury; Spikes v. Banks; Latham v. National Car Rental Sys., Inc.; Plaintiff’s percentage of fault; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); Lamp v. Reynolds; Whether reasonable minds could differ; Rodriguez v. Solar of MI, Inc.; The “last clear chance” doctrine; Callesen v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.

Concluding that this case was similar to others where a pedestrian suddenly darted into a moving vehicle’s path, the court held that defendant-Manheim’s Metro Detroit Auto Auction did not breach a duty to plaintiff. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for Manheim’s Metro. Plaintiff was brushed back by a slow moving vehicle at an auction hosted by Manheim’s Metro. He knew that it “was running when he stood just inches from the vehicle and placed both his hands on its hood. Plaintiff turned away from the vehicle, and as it began slowly moving forward, he again touched the hood of the vehicle, this time with his left hand. Plaintiff admitted that he knew the vehicle was moving when he touched the hood the second time. The vehicle paused in its forward momentum to avoid striking a pedestrian crossing the driving lane immediately in front of the vehicle. As soon as that pedestrian cleared the vehicle and the driving lane, the driver resumed the vehicle’s slow, forward momentum. Simultaneously, plaintiff stepped backwards into the driving lane, into” the vehicle’s path. He was looking away as he did so, “and he did not look back or touch the vehicle again, even though he knew that it had been moving just one second earlier. Under these circumstances, defendant breached no duty to plaintiff.” A video of the incident clearly showed “that he knew he was standing just inches from a vehicle that was running, knew that the vehicle had begun to move, and nonetheless stepped backwards into the driving lane without looking to see whether the vehicle was continuing to move. Given how quickly the sequence of events unfolded, the driver of the vehicle had no opportunity to avoid bumping plaintiff as he stepped backwards into” the lane. The court noted that, “contrary to plaintiff’s argument, whether a defendant breached a duty of care to the plaintiff is not always a question of fact for the jury,” and in light of the video, the trial court correctly determined that Manheim’s Metro “breached no duty owed to plaintiff.” The court also agreed with the trial court that no reasonable juror could find that he was less than 50% liable for the collision, and under MCL 500.3135(2)(b), a jury may not award damages to a party who is more than 50% at fault.