Automobile negligence; Sudden emergency doctrine; Credibility; “Reasonably prudent person”

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 72957 in the 5/18/20 edition), holding that the majority of the Court of Appeals panel erred in concluding that defendant-driver’s testimony was credible. The court found that while there was some evidence supporting “defendant-driver’s testimony, only he could know what happened inside his truck that day or whether he had any reason to suspect that an imminent syncopal episode might warrant certain conduct. When ‘the credibility of a witness or deponent is crucial, summary judgment should not be granted.’” Given that his “credibility was crucial to the success of his sudden-emergency defense, summary disposition should not have been granted.” While the dissent emphasized that his testimony left no fact question for trial, the court noted Judge Gleicher was correct that “the fact-finder may determine whether the defendant-driver acted as a ‘reasonably prudent person would have done under all the circumstances of the accident . . . .’” The court remanded to the trial court for entry of an order denying defendants’ summary disposition motion except on the grounds conceded by plaintiff, and for further proceedings.

Dissenting, Justice Viviano, joined by Justice Zahra, found that the trial court did not err in granting defendant-driver summary disposition. The dissent concluded that he “presented clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence to overcome the presumption that he was negligent. Although some of that evidence comes in the form of his testimony, plaintiff has not provided evidence calling that testimony into doubt. The evidence” presented all supported defendant’s testimony. Thus, no question of fact remained for the jury, and he was entitled to summary disposition.