Automobile negligence; Black ice; Sudden-emergency doctrine; Whether a Michigan driver should be aware of freezing conditions in freezing weather; Vsetula v Whitmyer; Reliance on Young v Flood

The court held that plaintiff-Martin’s testimony and defendant-Janet’s “affidavit testimony established that Janet encountered unsuspected black ice while driving at a reasonable speed, and that she lost control of the car because of the sudden emergency caused by the black ice. Plaintiff failed to submit substantively admissible evidence to the contrary.” Thus, the trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition and dismissed the case. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by ruling Janet encountered a sudden emergency that excused her negligence because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether she encountered black ice or her actions were reasonable. However, both plaintiff’s deposition and Janet’s affidavit testimonies established that no material factual dispute existed as to whether she encountered unsuspected black ice. The record reflected “no evidence indicating otherwise. Because plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact” as to whether Janet unexpectedly encountered black ice, the trial court properly held that the sudden-emergency doctrine applied. Plaintiff asserted a question of fact existed as to “whether a Michigan driver should be aware of freezing conditions in freezing weather which he claims challenges whether Janet’s actions were those of a reasonable person under the wintery circumstances.” The court disagreed, noting that “icy patches on a Michigan roadway during the winter can be un-suspected.” Affirmed.