Negligence; Henry v Dow Chem; Duty; Case v Consumers Power Co; Rebuttable presumption of negligence under the rear-end collision statute; MCL 257.402(a); MCL 257.627(1); Vander Laan v Miedema; The “sudden emergency doctrine”; Barringer v Arnold; “Unusual”; Patzer v Bowerman-Halifax Funeral Home; The “reasonably prudent person” rule; Baker v Alt; Causation; Governmental immunity; MCL 691.1405; The motor vehicle exception; Jurisdiction; Seldon v Smart; “Final order”; MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v); Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-SMART’s motion for partial summary disposition regarding governmental immunity. Plaintiff sued for injuries she sustained when defendant-bus driver (Martin) drove his SMART bus through a cloud of dust and into the rear end of a street sweeper. The trial court found there was a question of fact whether Martin had been negligent. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction on the basis that its jurisdiction was limited to determining whether plaintiff pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity, not whether SMART may be liable for negligence. “[P]roving negligence is an intrinsic part of proving an exception to governmental immunity under the motor vehicle exception. It should not be surprising that avoiding governmental immunity requires both proper pleading and proper evidence, and a two-step process does not mean the second step is not a part of the process.” It next found that “if either the cloud or the sweeper was visible, then there is at least a question of fact for the jury whether Martin was negligent. More importantly, there can be no dispute that several presumptions of negligence apply, and the jury must consider whether those presumptions were overcome unless ‘at the very least’ there is ‘clear, positive, and credible evidence opposing the presumption.’ SMART has provided no such evidence.” To the extent the video recording of the incident was ambiguous, “its interpretation is a question for the trier of fact. To the extent the video recording is clear, it supports an inference that Martin was negligent.” Finally, it noted that “SMART has provided, at the most, plausible evidence that another tortfeasor’s negligence may have contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Nevertheless, the evidence clearly shows a question of fact whether plaintiff’s injuries ‘resulted from’ Martin’s negligence.” Affirmed.