Governmental immunity; The motor-vehicle exception; MCL 691.1405; Negligence; Latham by Perry v National Car Rental Sys, Inc; A motorist’s duty; Zarzecki v Hatch; Noneconomic damages; Comparative fault; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); Pedestrian’s duty; MCL 257.655; Heger v Meissner

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendant-public transit provider (CCPT) summary disposition of plaintiff-child pedestrian’s claims. Plaintiff, through his mother, sued CCPT and its bus driver for injuries he sustained when he was struck by a public bus. The trial court determined “plaintiff was in the road when he was struck by the bus” and the bus driver had not operated the bus negligently. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by granting CCPT summary disposition because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the bus driver “was operating the bus with reasonable care and caution at the time of the collision.” There was evidence in the record that the bus driver “was aware of plaintiff and his friends at the side of the road, [she] at least should have been aware that children not-uncommonly crossed the road in that general area, and that [she] was exceeding the posted speed limit at the time of impact and had available ways to avoid the accident.” At this procedural stage, the court “may not determine the credibility or weight to be given any particular evidence. The jury could choose to believe a constellation of evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that [the bus driver] was driving negligently at the time of the accident.” As such, CCPT “was not definitively entitled to governmental immunity because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the motor-vehicle exception was applicable.” Reversed and remanded.